Consumer

Highlights China’s economic recovery is in a later stage than the US. A rebound in US Treasury yields is unlikely to trigger upward pressure on government bond yields in China. Imported inflation through mounting commodity and oil prices should be transitory and does not pose enough risk for Chinese authorities to further tighten policies. Historically, Chinese stocks have little correlation with changes in US Treasury yields; Chinese equity prices are primarily driven by the country’s domestic credit growth and economic conditions. We maintain our tactical (0 to 3 months) neutral position on Chinese stocks, in both absolute and relative terms. However, the near-term pullbacks are taking some air out of Chinese equities' frothy valuations,  providing room for a cyclical upswing. Chinese offshore stocks, which are highly concentrated in the tech sector, are facing multiple challenges. We are closing our long investable consumer discretionary/short investable consumer staples trade and we recommend long A-shares/short MSCI China Index. Feature Chinese stocks extended their February losses into the first week of March. Market participants fear that escalating real government bond yields in the US and elsewhere will have a sustained negative impact on Chinese risk assets, reinforced by ongoing policy normalization in China. Global equity prices have been buffeted by crosscurrents. An acceleration in the deployment of vaccines and increased economic reopenings provide a positive backdrop to the recovery of corporate profits. At the same time, optimism about global growth and broadening fiscal stimulus in the US has prompted investors to expect higher policy rates sooner. The US 10-year Treasury yield is up by 68bps so far this year, depressing US equity valuations and sending ripple effects across global bourses. In this report, we examine how rising US and global bond yields would affect China’s domestic monetary policy and risk-asset prices.  Will Climbing US Treasury Yields Push Up Chinese Rates? Chart 1Chinese Gov Bond Yields Have Led The US Counterpart Since 2015 Chinese Gov Bond Yields Have Led The US Counterpart Since 2015 Chinese Gov Bond Yields Have Led The US Counterpart Since 2015 Increasing bond yields in the US will not necessarily lead to higher bond yields in China. Chart 1 shows that the direction of China’s 10-year government bond yield has a tight correlation with its US counterpart. It is not surprising because business cycles in these giant economies have become more synchronized. Interestingly, China’s 10-year Treasury bond yield has led the US one since 2015. This may be due to China’s growing importance in the world economy. China’s credit and domestic demand growth leads the prices of many industrial metals and in turn, business cycles in many economies. China’s rising long-duration government bond yields reflect expectations of an improving domestic economy, and these expectations often spill over to the rest of the world, including the US. Although the recent sharp rebound in the US Treasury yield is mainly driven by domestic factors, the rebound is unlikely to spill over to their Chinese peers, because the countries are in different stages of their business and policy cycles. America is still at its early stage of economic recovery and fresh stimulus measures are still being rolled out, whereas China has already normalized its policy rates back to pre-pandemic levels and its credit growth peaked in Q4 last year. Chinese fixed-income markets will soon start pricing in moderating growth momentum in the second half of this year, suppressing the long-end of China’s Treasury yield curve (Chart 2). Importantly, none of the optimism that has lifted US Treasury yields - a vaccine-led global growth recovery and a massive US fiscal stimulus – would warrant a better outlook for China. Reopening worldwide economies will likely unleash pent-up demand for services, such as travel and catering, rather than merchandise trade. Chart 3 shows that since the pandemic US spending on goods, which benefited Chinese exports, has soared relative to spending on services. The trend will probably reverse when the US and world economy fully opens, limiting the upside for China’s exports and its contribution to growth this year. Chart 2China And The US Are In Different Stages Of Their Economic Recoveries China And The US Are In Different Stages Of Their Economic Recoveries China And The US Are In Different Stages Of Their Economic Recoveries Chart 3US Consumers Have Been Spending Much More On Goods Than Services During The Pandemic US Consumers Have Been Spending Much More On Goods Than Services During The Pandemic US Consumers Have Been Spending Much More On Goods Than Services During The Pandemic Bottom Line: China’s waning growth momentum will insulate Chinese bond yields from higher US Treasury yields.   Do Rising Inflation Expectations In The US Pose Risks Of Policy Tightening In China? Chart 4Imported Inflation Shouldnt Constrain The PBoC Imported Inflation Shouldnt Constrain The PBoC Imported Inflation Shouldnt Constrain The PBoC While China’s monetary policymaking is not entirely insulated from exogenous shocks, it is primarily driven by domestic economic conditions and inflation dynamics. We are not complacent about the risk of a meaningful uptick in global inflation, but we do not consider imported inflation a major policy constraint for the PBoC this year (Chart 4). Furthermore, at last week’s National People’s Congress (NPC), China set the inflation target in 2021 at 3%, which is a high bar to breach. Mounting commodity prices, particularly crude oil prices, may put upward pressures on China’s producer prices, but their impact on China’s overall inflation will be limited for the following reasons: China accounts for a large portion of the world’s commodity demand. Given that the country’s credit impulse has already peaked, domestic demand in capital-intensive sectors (such as construction and infrastructure spending) will slow this year. Reinforced policy restrictions on the property sector will also restrain the upside price potential in industrial raw materials such as steel and cement (Chart 5). For producers, the main and sustained risk for imported inflation will be concentrated in crude oil. The PPI may spike in Q2 and Q3 this year due to advancing oil prices and the extremely low base factor from the same period last year. The PBoC will likely view a spike in the PPI as transitory. Moreover, the recent improvement in producer pricing power appears to be narrow. The output price for consumer goods, which accounts for 25% of the PPI price basket, remains subdued (Chart 6). Chart 5Chinas Demand For Raw Materials Will Slow Chinas Demand For Raw Materials Will Slow Chinas Demand For Raw Materials Will Slow Chart 6Output Price For Consumer Goods Remains In Contraction Output Price For Consumer Goods Remains In Contraction Output Price For Consumer Goods Remains In Contraction Importantly, when oil prices plummeted in the first half of 2020, China’s crude oil inventories showed the fastest upturn on record (Chart 7). It suggests that China’s inventory restocking from last year may help to partially offset the impact from elevated oil prices this year. For consumers, oil prices account for a much smaller percentage of China’s CPI basket than in the US (Chart 8). Food prices, particularly pork, drive China’s headline CPI and can be idiosyncratic. We expect food price increases to be well contained this year due to improved supplies and the high base effect from last year.  Chart 7Massive Buildup in Chinas Crude Oil Inventory In 2020 Massive Buildup in Chinas Crude Oil Inventory In 2020 Massive Buildup in Chinas Crude Oil Inventory In 2020 Chart 8Oil Prices Account For A Small Portion In China's Consumer Spending Oil Prices Account For A Small Portion In Chinas Consumer Spending Oil Prices Account For A Small Portion In Chinas Consumer Spending Importantly, China’s inflation expectations have not recovered to their pre-pandemic levels and consumer confidence on future income growth also remains below its end-2019 figure (Chart 9). If this trend holds, then it will be difficult for producers to pass through escalating input costs to end users. Although China’s economy has strengthened, it is far from overheating (Chart 10). Without a sustained above-trend growth rebound, it is difficult to expect genuine inflationary pressures. The pandemic has distorted the balance of global supply and demand, propping up demand and price tags attached to it. In China’s case, however, production capacity and capital expenditures rebounded faster than demand and consumer spending, constraining the upsides in inflation (Chart 11).   Chart 9Consumer Inflation Expectations Have Not Fully Recovered Consumer Inflation Expectations Have Not Fully Recovered Consumer Inflation Expectations Have Not Fully Recovered Chart 10Chinese Economy Is Not Yet Overheating Chinese Economy Is Not Yet Overheating Chinese Economy Is Not Yet Overheating China’s CPI is at its lowest point since 2009, making China’s real yields much greater than in the US. Rising real US government bond yields could be mildly positive for China because they help to narrow the Sino-US interest rate differential and temper the pace of the RMB’s appreciation (Chart 12). A breather in the RMB’s gains would be a welcome reflationary force for Chinese exporters and we doubt that Chinese policymakers will spoil it with a rush to hike domestic rates. Chart 11And Production Has Recovered Faster Than Demand And Production Has Recovered Faster Than Demand And Production Has Recovered Faster Than Demand Chart 12Narrowing Real Rate Differentials Helps To Tamper The RMB Appreciation Narrowing Real Rate Differentials Helps To Tamper The RMB Appreciation Narrowing Real Rate Differentials Helps To Tamper The RMB Appreciation Bottom Line: It is premature to worry about an inflation overshoot in China. The current environment is characterized as easing deflation rather than rising inflation. Our base case remains that inflationary pressures will stay at bay this year. Are Higher US Treasury Yields Headwinds For Chinese Stocks? Historically, Chinese stocks have exhibited a loose cyclical correlation with US government bond yields, particularly in the onshore market (Chart 13). Equity prices in China are more closely correlated with domestic long-duration government bond yields, but the relationship is inconsistent (Chart 14). Chart 13Chinese Stocks Have Little Correlation With US Treasury Yields Chinese Stocks Have Little Correlation With US Treasury Yields Chinese Stocks Have Little Correlation With US Treasury Yields Chart 14Correlations Between Chinese Stocks And Domestic Gov Bond Yields Are Inconsistent Correlations Between Chinese Stocks And Domestic Gov Bond Yields Are Inconsistent Correlations Between Chinese Stocks And Domestic Gov Bond Yields Are Inconsistent Chinese stocks are much more sensitive to changes in the quantity of domestic money supply than the price of money. A sharp rebound in China’s 10-year government bond yield in the second half of last year did not stop Chinese stocks from rallying. The insensitivity of Chinese stocks to changes in the price of money is particularly prevalent during the early stage of an economic recovery. As we pointed out in a previous report, since 2015 the PBoC has shifted its policy to target interest rates instead of the quantity of money supply. Thus, credit growth, which propels China’s business cycle and corporate profits, can still trend higher even as bond yields pick up. This explains why domestic credit growth, rather than China’s real government bond yields, has been the primary driver of the forward P/E of Chinese stocks (Chart 15A and 15B). This contrasts with the S&P, in which the forward P/E ratio moves in lockstep with the inverted real yield in US Treasuries (Chart 16). Chart 15ACredit Growth Has Been Driving Up Chinese Stock Valuations Credit Growth Has Been Driving Up Chinese Stock Valuations Credit Growth Has Been Driving Up Chinese Stock Valuations Chart 15BCredit Growth Has Been Driving Up Chinese Stock Valuations Credit Growth Has Been Driving Up Chinese Stock Valuations Credit Growth Has Been Driving Up Chinese Stock Valuations Credit growth in China peaked in Q4 last year and the intensity of the economic recovery has started to moderate. Hence, regardless of the changes in bond yields, Chinese stocks will need to rely on profit growth in order to sustain an upward trend (Chart 17). Chart 16Falling Real Rates Were Propping Up US Equity Valuations Falling Real Rates Were Propping Up US Equity Valuations Falling Real Rates Were Propping Up US Equity Valuations Chart 17Earnings Growth Needs To Accelerate To Support Chinese Stock Performance Earnings Growth Needs To Accelerate To Support Chinese Stock Performance Earnings Growth Needs To Accelerate To Support Chinese Stock Performance The good news is that recent gyrations in the US equity market, coupled with concerns about further tightening in China’s domestic economic policy have triggered shakeouts in China’s equity markets. The pullback in stock prices has helped to shed some excesses in frothy Chinese valuations and has opened a door for more upsides in Chinese stock on a cyclical basis. Bottom Line: Rising Treasury yields in the US or China will not have a direct negative impact on Chinese equities. Last year’s massive credit expansion has lifted both earnings and multiples in Chinese stocks and an acceleration in earnings growth is now needed to support stock performance. Investment Implications The key message from last week’s NPC meetings suggests that policy tightening will be gradual this year. While the 6% growth target was lower than expected, it represents a floor rather than a suggested range and it will likely be exceeded. Bond yields and policy rates are already at their pre-pandemic levels, indicating that there is not much room for further monetary policy tightening this year. The announced objectives for the fiscal deficit and local government bond quotas are only modestly smaller than last year. The economic and policy-support targets support our view that policymakers will be cautious and not overdo tightening. We will elaborate on our takeaways from this year’s NPC in next week’s report. Chart 18Chinese Cyclicals Can Still Benefit From An Improving Global Economic Backdrop Chinese Cyclicals Can Still Benefit From An Improving Global Economic Backdrop Chinese Cyclicals Can Still Benefit From An Improving Global Economic Backdrop Meanwhile, there is still some room for Chinese cyclical stocks to run higher relative to defensives, given the current Goldilocks backdrop of global economic recovery and accommodative monetary policy (Chart 18). We maintain a tactical (0 to 3 months) neutral position on Chinese stocks, in both absolute and relative terms. The market correction has not fully run its course. However, the near-term pullbacks are taking some air out of Chinese equities' frothy valuations, providing room for a cyclical upswing. We are closing our long investable consumer discretionary/short investable consumer staples trade. Instead, we recommend the following trade: long A-share stocks/short MSCI China Index. Investable consumer discretionary sector stocks, which are concentrated in China’s technology giants, face a confluence of challenges ranging from the ripple effects of falling stock prices in the US tech sector and tightened antitrust regulations in China (Chart 19). In contrast, the A-share index is heavily weighted in value stocks while the MSCI China investable index has a large proportion of expensive new economy stocks (Chart 20). The trade is in line with our view that the investment backdrop has shifted in favor of global value versus growth stocks due to a strong US expansion, rising US bond yields and a weaker US dollar. Chart 19Chinese Investable Tech Sector Is Facing Strong Headwinds Chinese Investable Tech Sector Is Facing Strong Headwinds Chinese Investable Tech Sector Is Facing Strong Headwinds Chart 20Overweight A Shares Versus Chinese Investable Stocks Overweight A Shares Versus Chinese Investable Stocks Overweight A Shares Versus Chinese Investable Stocks   Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights This week, we present the second edition of the BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) Global Credit Conditions Chartbook—a review of central bank surveys of bank lending standards and loan demand. Feature The data on lending standards during the last quarter of 2020 are decidedly mixed. Credit standards for business loans continued to tighten in most countries (Chart 1). On the positive side, the pace of that tightening slowed, or is expected to slow, going into 2021. Importantly, the survey data for consumer loan demand in many countries paints a more optimistic picture for household spending than consumer confidence indices. In sum, the lending surveys indicate that the panoply of global fiscal and monetary stimulus measures introduced over the past year to help offset the financial shock of the pandemic have passed through, to some degree, into easier credit standards. This should help sustain the current trends of rising global bond yields and narrowing corporate credit spreads. Chart 1Mixed Data On Lending Standards Mixed Data On Lending Standards Mixed Data On Lending Standards An Overview Of Global Credit Condition Surveys Chart 2Credit Standards And Spreads Are Correlated Credit Standards And Spreads Are Correlated Credit Standards And Spreads Are Correlated After every quarter, major central banks compile surveys to assess prevailing credit conditions. The purpose is to obtain from banks an assessment of how their lending standards and demand for loans, for both firms and consumers, changed over the previous quarter. Most surveys also ask questions about the key factors driving these changes and expectations for the next quarter.1 For fixed income investors, these surveys are valuable for a few reasons. Firstly, data on consumer lending is a window into consumer health while business loan demand sheds light on the investment picture. These help derive a view on the path of future economic growth and interest rates and thus, the appropriate duration stance of a bond portfolio. Also, credit standards can tell us about the pass-through from fiscal and monetary policy measures to realized financial conditions (i.e. corporate borrowing rates). Most importantly, credit standards exhibit a direct correlation with corporate bond spreads (Chart 2). As they have access to detailed, non-public information on a large number of borrowers, loan officers are uniquely positioned to evaluate corporate health. When banks are tightening standards, they see an issue with the credit quality of either current or future loans, which impacts borrowing costs in the corporate bond market. Tightening standards indicate a worsening borrowing backdrop and weaker growth, which then pushes up corporate spreads. Vice versa, easing standards imply a favorable backdrop and plentiful liquidity—both bullish signs for spread product. US In the US, the net percent of domestic respondents to the Fed’s Senior Loan Officer survey that tightened standards for commercial and industrial (C&I) loans (measured as an average of small, middle-market, and large firms) fell significantly in Q4/2020 (Chart 3). The key issue, both for lenders that tightened and eased standards, was the economic outlook, with those that eased taking a more sanguine view and vice-versa. Chart 3US Credit Conditions US Credit Conditions US Credit Conditions Chart 4Corporate Borrowing Costs Are Driving Easy Financial Conditions Corporate Borrowing Costs Are Driving Easy Financial Conditions Corporate Borrowing Costs Are Driving Easy Financial Conditions The ad-hoc questions, asked in every instalment of the survey, discussed the outlook for 2021. On this front, US lenders expect easier lending standards over the course of the year, driven by an increase in risk tolerance and expected improvement in the credit quality of their loan portfolios. There was a marked improvement in demand for C&I loans in Q4/2020 although, on net, a small number of lenders still reported weaker demand over Q4/2020. Those that reported stronger loan demand cited financing for mergers and acquisitions as the biggest driver. Meanwhile, lenders reporting weaker demand primarily cited decreased fixed asset investment. However, the reasons for weaker demand were not all bad—many cited a reduced need for precautionary cash and liquidity. Over 2021, the outlook is quite bullish, with demand expected to hit all-time highs in net balance terms. The picture on the consumer side was buoyant in Q4 and that trend is expected to continue in 2021. A net +7% of banks increased credit limits on credit cards, while a moderately smaller share charged a narrower spread over cost of funds. However, in a trend we will continue to note for other regions in this report, there is a seeming divergence between consumer lending behavior and the sentiment numbers. This indicates a pent-up ability to spend that will likely be realized in full as pandemic restrictions begin to lift. After the economic outlook, increased competition from other banks and non-bank lenders was another leading factor behind easing standards. This is in line with our view that plummeting corporate borrowing costs are the primary driver of easy financial conditions in the US (Chart 4). We have shown that credit standards lead the US high-yield default rate by a one-year period; easier credit standards will further improve the default outlook, creating a virtuous cycle for as long as the Fed maintains monetary support. Euro Area In the euro area, lending standards continued to tighten at a faster pace in Q4/2020 even though that number had been expected to fall (Chart 5). The key reason was a worsening in risk perceptions due to continued uncertainty about the recovery. Persistently low risk tolerance also contributed to the tightening of standards. The tightening was somewhat worse for small and medium-sized enterprises than for large enterprises, and was also more pronounced in longer-term loans. This pessimistic outlook on credit standards is in line with an elevated high-yield default rate that has not shown signs of rolling over as it has in the US. Going into Q1/2021, standards are expected to continue tightening, albeit at a slightly slower rate. Chart 5Euro Area Credit Conditions Euro Area Credit Conditions Euro Area Credit Conditions Chart 6Credit Standards For Major Euro Area Economies Credit Standards For Major Euro Area Economies Credit Standards For Major Euro Area Economies Business credit demand was grim as well, weakening at a faster pace in Q4. This was driven by falling demand for fixed investments. Chart 7ECB Support Will Bring Down The Italy-Germany Spread ECB Support Will Bring Down The Italy-Germany Spread ECB Support Will Bring Down The Italy-Germany Spread Inventory and working capital financing needs, which spiked dramatically in Q2/2020 due to acute liquidity needs, continued to contribute positively to loan demand - albeit to a much lesser extent than previous quarters as firms had already built up significant liquidity buffers. The decline in credit demand was also significantly larger for longer-term financing. Taken together with fixed investment demand, which has been in significant and persistent decline since Q1/2020, this is an extremely troubling trend for the euro area economy, confirming the ECB’s fears that the capital stock destruction wreaked by Covid-19 has permanently lowered potential long-term growth. After staging a tentative recovery in Q3/2020, consumer credit demand once again weakened in Q4/2020, attributable to declining consumer confidence and spending on durable goods as renewed pandemic lockdowns swept through Europe. However, low interest rates did contribute slightly to lifting credit demand on the margin. The divergence between consumer credit and confidence is not as dramatic in the euro area as in other regions. With demand expected to pick up in Q1, any narrowing in this gap is largely dependent on whether the EU can recover from what is already being called a botched vaccine rollout. Looking individually at the four major euro area economies, standards continued to tighten at a slow pace in Germany while remaining flat in Italy (Chart 6). Standards tightened more slowly in Spain due to an improvement in risk perceptions but tightened at a faster pace in France for the very same reason. Elevated risk perceptions in France could reflect concern about high debt levels among French firms. Going forward, firms expect the pace of tightening to slow in France and Spain, while picking up in Germany. Meanwhile, standards are expected to tighten outright in Italy in Q1/2021. Bank lending, however, continues to grow at the strongest pace since the 2008 financial crisis, reflecting the extent of the extraordinary pandemic-related measures (Chart 7). The ECB’s cheap bank funding through LTROs is helping support loan growth in the more fragile economies of Italy and Spain. In the face of this, investors should fade concern about an expected tightening in credit conditions in Italy that could drive up the risk premia on Italian government bonds. UK Chart 8UK Credit Conditions UK Credit Conditions UK Credit Conditions In the UK, overall corporate credit standards remained mostly unchanged, with corporate credit availability deteriorating very slightly (Chart 8). The increased reticence to lend to small businesses is justified by small business default rates, which saw the worst developments since Q2/2020. The demand side, meanwhile, has been volatile. The massive demand spike in Q2/2020 to meet liquidity needs was followed by a commensurate decline in the following quarter. The picture now appears to be stabilizing, with demand recovering to a stable level and expected to grow moderately in Q1/2021. Household credit demand strengthened, while credit standards for secured and unsecured loans to consumers eased in last quarter of 2020. While the recovery in consumer confidence has been muted, expect the divergence between credit demand and sentiment to fade as the UK moves towards lifting restrictions and households look to satisfy pent-up demand. The two predominant narratives of Q4/2020 in the UK were positive developments on the vaccine and the Brexit deal, both contributing to a massive reduction in uncertainty. This is reflected in the survey data, with lenders reporting that the economic outlook and improving risk appetites will contribute to easier credit standards in Q1/2021. The UK is currently leading developed market peers in terms of cumulative vaccinations per capita. In addition, Prime Minister Johnson will be unveiling next week a roadmap out of lockdown, another positive sign for the heavily services-weighted economy. Japan Chart 9Japan Credit Conditions Japan Credit Conditions Japan Credit Conditions After decades of perma-QE and ultra-low rates, the Japanese credit market behaves in a contrary way to most other markets. In Q2/2020 at the height of the pandemic, while other lenders were tightening standards, Japanese lenders were actually easing standards (Chart 9). Since then, there has been a significant drop in the number of firms reporting easier standards. More importantly, none of the firms in the Q4/2020 survey reported tightening, meaning that borrowing conditions have not changed significantly since the massive liquidity injection in response to the pandemic. So, it appears that demand is the primary driver of the Japanese credit market. On balance, firms reported weaker demand for loans in Q4, citing decreased fixed investment, an increase in internally generated funds, and availability of funding from other sources. As we discussed in our last Credit Conditions chartbook,2 business lending demand in Japan is typically countercyclical, meaning that firms usually seek funds for precautionary or restructuring reasons. Going into Q1, survey respondents expect an increase in loan demand, which is in line with the recent deterioration in business sentiment. On the consumer side, loan demand rebounded strongly in Q4. Leading factors were an increase in housing investment and consumption. As in the UK, there has been a divergence between consumer credit demand and sentiment which will likely resolve as the recent resurgence in Covid-19 cases is brought under control. Canada & New Zealand In Canada, business lending standards eased slightly in Q4/2020, coinciding with a rebound in business confidence (Chart 10). As in other developed markets, the recovery was driven by vaccine optimism and hopes of reopening in 2021. The more important story for the Bank of Canada (BoC), however, is the overheating housing market. As we discussed last week in a Special Report published jointly with our colleagues at BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy,3 ultra-low rates have helped fuel another upturn in the Canadian housing market, with housing the most affordable it has been in five years, according to the BoC’s indicator. The strength in the housing market was supported by easing standards on mortgage lending, indicating that monetary and regulatory measures to bolster the market have seen quick and efficient pass-through. Although we expect the BoC to remain relatively dovish, a frothy housing market, and the resulting financial stability issues, are a key risk to that view. In New Zealand, fewer lenders reported a tightening in business loan standards, while standards for residential mortgages continued to tighten at an unchanged pace from the previous survey (Chart 11). Decreased risk tolerance and worsening risk perceptions were the key factors behind reduced credit availability; these were partly offset by changes in regulation and a falling cost of funds. Standards are expected to ease, and business loan demand is expected to pick up remarkably, by the end of Q1/2021. Chart 10Canada Credit Conditions Canada Credit Conditions Canada Credit Conditions Chart 11New Zealand Credit Conditions New Zealand Credit Conditions New Zealand Credit Conditions On the consumer side, while standards for residential mortgages continued to tighten at an unchanged pace during the survey period, they are expected to ease going forward. As in Canada, house prices are at the forefront of the monetary policy discussion in New Zealand, which means that the expected easing in standards might actually pose a problem for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. Meanwhile, although consumer loan demand did weaken over the survey period, it is expected to stage a recovery this quarter. This view is bolstered by a strong recovery in consumer confidence, which is working its way up to pre-pandemic levels.   Shakti Sharma Research Associate ShaktiS@bcaresearch.com Appendix: Where To Find The Bank Lending Surveys A number of central banks publish regular surveys of bank lending conditions in their domestic economies. The surveys, and the details on how they are conducted, can be found on the websites of the central banks: US Federal Reserve: https://www.federalreserve.gov/data/sloos.htm European Central Bank: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats/ecb_surveys/bank_lending_survey/html/index.en.html Bank of England: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/credit-conditions-survey/2020/2020-q4 Bank of Japan: https://www.boj.or.jp/en/statistics/dl/loan/loos/index.htm/ Bank of Canada: https://www.bankofcanada.ca/publications/slos/ Reserve Bank of New Zealand: https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/c60-credit-conditions-survey   Footnotes 1 The weblinks to each individual survey for the US, euro area, UK, Japan, Canada and New Zealand can be found in the Appendix on page 12. 2 Please see BCA Research Global Fixed Income Strategy Report, "Introducing The GFIS Global Credit Conditions Chartbook", dated September 8, 2020, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Will The Canadian Recovery Lead Or Lag The Global Cycle?", dated February 12, 2021, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index GFIS Global Credit Conditions Chartbook Q1/2021: A Tentative Recovery GFIS Global Credit Conditions Chartbook Q1/2021: A Tentative Recovery Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Dear client, On behalf of the China Investment Strategy team, I would like to wish you a very happy, healthy, and prosperous Chinese New Year of the Ox (Bull)! Gong Xi Fa Chai, Jing Sima, China Strategist   Highlights A projected 8% increase in China’s real GDP for 2021 will not be an acceleration from the V-shaped economic recovery from the second half of last year. Excluding an exceptionally strong year-over-year economic expansion in Q1, the average growth in the rest of this year will be slower than in 2H20, which implies China’s economic growth momentum has already passed its peak. On a quarter-over-quarter basis, an expected 18% annual growth in Q1 would mean that China’s economic growth momentum has moderated from Q4 last year. Chinese policymakers are not in a hurry to press the stimulus accelerator again, with good reason. Commodity and risk-asset prices will be the most vulnerable to a weakened demand growth.   Feature China’s real GDP is expected to grow by more than 8% this year, which would be a significant improvement over last year’s 2.3%.1 However, it is misleading to compare this year’s growth with that of 2020 as a whole. The first three months of this year will undergo an exceptionally high year-on-year growth (YoY) rate due to the deep contraction experienced in Q1 last year. An 8% annual growth for 2021 would imply that the rate of economic expansion in the rest of this year will be slower than the sharp recovery in 2H20.  From a policy perspective, an 8% real GDP growth in 2021 implies an average rate of 5% over the 2020-2021 period, within the long-term growth range targeted in China’s 14th Five-Year Plan - this removes policymakers’ incentives to further stimulate the economy. The annual National People's Congress (NPC) in early March should provide clues about the government's growth priorities and policy directions. If policymakers set 2021’s real GDP growth target at around 8%, our interpretation is that Chinese leaders are not looking to accelerate growth beyond where it ended in 2020. Major equity indexes are already richly valued. A moderating growth momentum from China will weigh on commodity and risk asset prices, both in China and globally.  We reiterate our view that downside risks are high in the near term; the market could take the easing demand growth from China as a reason for a long overdue correction. A Perspective On Growth In 2021 Investors should put this year’s GDP growth projections into perspective given last year’s distortions in China’s economic conditions and data. On a YoY basis, data in the first quarter this year will be artificially boosted due to the deep contraction in Q1 last year. The market consensus is that Q1 2021 will register an 18% YoY rate of real GDP expansion. If we assume the economy can expand by 8% this year over 2020, then the YoY GDP growth rates in the rest of this year will average less than 6%. This would be below the 6.5% YoY rate in the fourth quarter of 2020 – meaning that on a YoY basis, China’s growth momentum has peaked (Chart 1). Importantly, sequential growth, such as month-over-month (MoM) and quarter-over-quarter (QoQ), drives the financial markets. On a QoQ basis, Q1 business activities are typically weaker due to the Chinese New Year. However, when we compare the rate of QoQ slowdown in Q1 this year with previous years, an 18% YoY increase would mean China’s output in the first three months of 2021 would be one of the worst in the past 20 years (Chart 2).  Chart 1Q1 GDP Growth Will Be Artificially Boosted, On A YoY Basis Q1 GDP Growth Will Be Artificially Boosted, On A YoY Basis Q1 GDP Growth Will Be Artificially Boosted, On A YoY Basis Chart 2…But Will Be On The Weaker Side, On A QoQ Basis Understanding China’s Growth Arithmetic For 2021 Understanding China’s Growth Arithmetic For 2021 The moderating growth momentum in Q1 this year was already reflected in high-frequency data in January. Most major components in last week’s PMI surveys in both the manufacturing and service sectors had larger setbacks than in January of previous years. Prices in major commodities as well as the Baltic Dry Index softened (Chart 3). Cyclical sector stocks in China’s onshore market, which is highly sensitive to domestic economic policies, have halted their outperformance relative to defensive stocks (Chart 4).  Chart 3Chinese Economic Growth May Be Showing Signs Of Moderation Chinese Economic Growth May Be Showing Signs Of Moderation Chinese Economic Growth May Be Showing Signs Of Moderation Chart 4Outperformance In Onshore Cyclical Stocks Is Rolling Over Outperformance In Onshore Cyclical Stocks Is Rolling Over Outperformance In Onshore Cyclical Stocks Is Rolling Over Furthermore, it is useful to look past the growth outliers in the previous four quarters to gain insight into the status of China’s business cycle. On a two-year smoothed term, an 8% annual output growth in 2021 would represent a continuation of China’s downward economic growth trend (Chart 5). Chart 5This Years Rebound In Headline GDP Growth Does Not Alter Chinas Structural Downtrend This Years Rebound In Headline GDP Growth Does Not Alter Chinas Structural Downtrend This Years Rebound In Headline GDP Growth Does Not Alter Chinas Structural Downtrend Bottom Line:  It is misleading to consider an 8% YoY real GDP growth rate in 2021 as an acceleration in China’s economic recovery. On a quarterly basis, Q1 will undergo a moderation in growth momentum. The economy in the rest of the year will remain on a downward growth trend. No Rush To Stimulate Anew If Q1 growth turns out to be weaker than the market anticipates, then will Beijing continue to dial back stimulus? Or, will it become concerned about the underlying fragility in the economy and provide more support? So far, all signs point to a continuation of a stimulus pullback. Chart 6Tighter Monetary Conditions are Starting To Bite the Economy Tighter Monetary Conditions are Starting To Bite the Economy Tighter Monetary Conditions are Starting To Bite the Economy The resurgence of domestic COVID-19 cases contributed significantly to January’s shaky demand. However, tighter monetary conditions in 2H20 are likely another reason for the growth moderation (Chart 6). Here are some factors that may have prompted Chinese authorities to stay on track to scale back stimulus: Policymakers appear to consider the massive fiscal stimulus last year overdone. In contrast with the previous two years, local governments are not issuing special-purpose bonds (SPBs) before the NPC sets its quota in early March. China’s broader fiscal budgetary deficit widened to 11% of GDP in 2020 from 6% in 2019. Local governments issued nearly 70% more SPBs in 2020 than in the previous year (Chart 7). SPBs are mostly used for investing in infrastructure projects and last year’s fiscal support along with substantial credit expansion helped to speed up infrastructure investment. However, towards the end of last year local governments reportedly experienced a shortage in profitable investment projects and thus, parked more than 400 billion yuan of proceeds from last year’s SPB issuance at the central bank (Chart 8). This will likely convince the central government to reduce the SPB quota by a large margin this year. Chart 7Fiscal Stimulus Last Year May Be Overdone Fiscal Stimulus Last Year May Be Overdone Fiscal Stimulus Last Year May Be Overdone Chart 8Local Governments Reportedly Ran Out Of Profitable Infrastructure Projects To Invest Last Year Local Governments Reportedly Ran Out Of Profitable Infrastructure Projects To Invest Last Year Local Governments Reportedly Ran Out Of Profitable Infrastructure Projects To Invest Last Year In addition, government revenues in 2020 were surprisingly strong and spending was well below budgeted annual expenditures, resulting in 2.5 trillion yuan in idle funds (Chart 9). Based on China’s fiscal budget laws, any unspent funds from the previous year will be carried over to the next year. In other words, the 2.5 trillion yuan will contribute to fiscal deficit reduction this year and are not extra savings that can be distributed.  In addition, asset price bubbles are a perennial concern. Land sales and housing demand for top-tier cities roared back last year due to cheap loans and a relaxed policy environment (Chart 10). In our opinion, Chinese leaders allowed the real estate market to temporarily heat up last year to avoid a deep economic recession. As the economy recovered to its pre-pandemic level by late 2020, policymakers have sharply reduced their tolerance for the booming housing market and substantially tightened restrictions in the real estate sector. Chart 9Unspent Fiscal Stimulus Checks Do Not Lead To Higher Government Spending Next Year Unspent Fiscal Stimulus Checks Do Not Lead To Higher Government Spending Next Year Unspent Fiscal Stimulus Checks Do Not Lead To Higher Government Spending Next Year Chart 10Housing Market Heats Up Again Housing Market Heats Up Again Housing Market Heats Up Again The domestic labor market has been surprisingly resilient, removing the leadership’s political constraints and incentives to further stimulate the economy.  Labor market conditions and household income are improving. The gap between household disposable income and spending growth has narrowed, the unemployment rate is back to its pre-pandemic level and consumer confidence has rebounded (Chart 11). More importantly, China’s labor market in urban areas is tightening again, with migrant workers receiving higher pay than prior to the pandemic (Chart 12).  Chart 11Labor Market Is On The Mend Labor Market Is On The Mend Labor Market Is On The Mend Chart 12China’s Urban Labor Market Is Tightening Again Understanding China’s Growth Arithmetic For 2021 Understanding China’s Growth Arithmetic For 2021 Bottom Line: Growth rates will moderate, but policymakers will wait for more evidence of a pronounced slowdown in economic conditions before they ease policies. Concerns about financial risks and excesses in the property market entail authorities to allow stimulus of 2020 to relapse. It will take a much deeper slowdown in the business cycle before easing is re-introduced. Investment Implications Our baseline view indicates that credit growth will decelerate by two to three percentage points in 2021 from 2020, and the local government SPB quota will drop by 10%. The projected pullbacks on stimulus are small and more measured than the last policy tightening cycle in 2017/18. Nevertheless, a smaller stimulus and tighter policy environment will consequently lead to moderating growth momentum in China’s domestic economy and demand, particularly in the second half of this year.   Chart 13How Far Can Chinas Inventory Restocking Cycle Go Without More Policy Tailwinds How Far Can Chinas Inventory Restocking Cycle Go Without More Policy Tailwinds How Far Can Chinas Inventory Restocking Cycle Go Without More Policy Tailwinds Commodity prices may be at high risk of easing demand. The strong rebound in China’s commodity imports in 2H20 was not only due to a recovery in domestic consumption, but also inventory restocking from an extremely low level. Chart 13 shows that the change in China’s industrial inventories relative to exports has risen substantially from a two-year contraction. Going forward, the pace of inventory accumulation will slow following a weaker policy tailwind and growth momentum, which will weigh on the demand for and prices of key industrial raw materials. Corporate profits should continue to recover, albeit at a slower rate than in 2H20. At the same time, risks are tilted to the downside, and policy initiatives should be closely monitored going forward. As such, we maintain a cautious view on Chinese stocks.    Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com   Footnote: 1     IMF World Economic Outlook and World Bank Global Outlook, January 2021   Footnotes Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights A positive backdrop still supports a cyclical bull market in Chinese stocks, but the upside in prices could be quickly exhausted. Investors may be overlooking emerging negative signs in China’s onshore equity market.  The breadth of the A-share price rally has sharply declined since the beginning of this year; historically, a rapid narrowing in breadth has been a reliable indicator for pullbacks in the onshore market. Recent stock price rallies in some high-flying sectors of the onshore market are due to earnings multiples rather than earnings growth. Overstretched stock prices relative to earnings risk a snapback. We remain cautious on short-term prospects for China’s onshore equity markets.  Feature Market commentators remain sharply divided about whether Chinese stocks will continue on their cyclical bull run or are in a speculative frenzy ready to capitulate. Stock prices picked up further in the first three weeks of 2021, extending their rallies in 2020. The positives that support a bull market, such as China’s economic recovery and improving profit growth, are at odds with the negatives. The downside is that the intensity of post-pandemic stimulus in China has likely peaked and monetary conditions have tightened. In addition, China’s stock markets may be showing signs of fatigue. While aggregate indexes have recorded new highs, the breadth of the rally—the percentage of stocks for which prices are rising versus falling—has been rapidly deteriorating. In the past, a sharp narrowing in breadth led to corrections and major setbacks in Chinese stock prices. Timing the eventual correction in stock prices will be tricky in an environment where plentiful cash on the sidelines from stimulus invites risk-taking. For now, there is little near-term benefit for investors to chase the rally in Chinese stocks. While we are not yet negative on Chinese stocks on a cyclical basis, the risks for a near-term price correction are significant. Investors looking to allocate more cash to Chinese stocks should wait until a correction occurs. Positive Backdrop On a cyclical basis, there are still some aspects that could push Chinese stocks even higher. The question is the speed of the rally. The more earnings multiples expand in the near term, the more earnings will have to do the heavy lifting in the rest of the year to pull Chinese stocks higher. The following factors have provided tailwinds to Chinese stocks, but may have already been discounted by investors: Chart 1Chinas Economic Recovery Continues Chinas Economic Recovery Continues Chinas Economic Recovery Continues China’s economic recovery continues. China was the only major world economy to record growth in 2020. The massive stimulus rolled out last year should continue to work its way through the economy and support the ongoing uptrend in the business cycle (Chart 1). China’s relative success containing domestic COVID-19 outbreaks also provides confidence for the country’s consumers, businesses and investors. Chinese consumers have saved money—a lot of it. Although the household sector has been a laggard in China’s aggregate economy, much of the consumption weakness has been due to a slower recovery in service activities, such as tourism and catering (Chart 2). More importantly, Chinese households have accumulated substantial savings in the past two years. Unlike investors in the US, Chinese households have limited investment choices. Historically, sharp increases in household savings growth led to property booms (Chart 3, top panel). Given that Chinese authorities have become more vigilant in preventing further price inflation in the property market, Chinese households have been increasingly investing in the domestic equity market (Chart 3, middle and bottom panels). Reportedly, there has been a sharp jump in demand for investment products from households; mutual funds in China have raised money at a record pace, bringing in over 2 trillion yuan ($308 billion) in 2020, which is more than the total amount for the previous four years. The equity investment penetration remains low in China compared with developed nations such as the US.1 Thus, there is still room for Chinese households to deploy their savings into domestic stock markets. Chart 2Consumption Has Been A Laggard In Chinas Economic Recovery Consumption Has Been A Laggard In Chinas Economic Recovery Consumption Has Been A Laggard In Chinas Economic Recovery Chart 3But Chinese Households Have Saved A Lot Of Dry Powder But Chinese Households Have Saved A Lot Of Dry Powder But Chinese Households Have Saved A Lot Of Dry Powder   Global growth and the liquidity backdrop remain positive. The combination of extremely easy monetary policy worldwide and a new round of fiscal support in the US will provide a supportive backdrop for both global economic growth and liquidity conditions. Foreign investment has flocked into China’s financial markets since last year and has picked up speed since the New Year (Chart 4). On a monthly basis, portfolio inflows account for less than 1% of the onshore equity market trading volume, but in recent years foreign portfolio inflows have increasingly influenced China’s onshore equity market sentiment and prices (Chart 5). Chart 4Foreign Investors Are Piling Into The Chinese Equity Market Foreign Investors Are Piling Into The Chinese Equity Market Foreign Investors Are Piling Into The Chinese Equity Market Chart 5And Have Become A More Influential Player In The Chinese Onshore Market And Have Become A More Influential Player In The Chinese Onshore Market And Have Become A More Influential Player In The Chinese Onshore Market Geopolitical risks are abating somewhat. We do not expect that the Biden administration will be quick to unwind Trump’s existing trade policies on China. However, in the near term, the two nations will likely embark on a less confrontational track than in the past two and a half years. Slightly eased Sino-US tensions will provide global investors with more confidence for buying Chinese risk assets. Lastly, localized COVID-19 outbreaks have flared up in several Chinese cities, prompting local authorities to take aggressive measures, including community lockdowns and stepping up travel restrictions. A deterioration in the situation could delay the recovery of household consumption; however, any negative impact on China’s aggregate economy will more than likely be offset by market expectations that policymakers will delay monetary policy normalization. Domestic liquidity conditions could improve, possibly providing a short-term boost to the rally in Chinese stocks. Bottom Line: Much of the positive news may already be priced into Chinese stocks. Non-Negligible Downside Risks There is a consensus that Chinese authorities will dial back their stimulus efforts this year and continue to tighten regulations in sectors such as real estate. Investors may disagree on the pace and magnitude of policy tightening, but the policy direction has been explicit from recent government announcements. However, the market may have ignored the following factors and their implications on stock performance: Deteriorating equity market breadth. In the past three weeks, the rally in Chinese stocks has been supported by a handful of blue-chip companies. The CSI 300 Index, which aggregates the largest 300 companies listed on both the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges (i.e. the A-share market) outperformed the broader A-share market by a large margin (Chart 6). Crucially, stock market breadth has declined rapidly (Chart 7). In short, the majority of Chinese stocks have relapsed. Chart 6Large Cap Stocks Outperform The Rest By A Sizable Margin Large Cap Stocks Outperform The Rest By A Sizable Margin Large Cap Stocks Outperform The Rest By A Sizable Margin Chart 7The Breadth Of Onshore Stock Price Rally Has Narrowed Sharply The Breadth Of Onshore Stock Price Rally Has Narrowed Sharply The Breadth Of Onshore Stock Price Rally Has Narrowed Sharply   Chart 8Narrowing Market Breadth Has Historically Led To Price Pullbacks Narrowing Market Breadth Has Historically Led To Price Pullbacks Narrowing Market Breadth Has Historically Led To Price Pullbacks Previously, Chinese stocks experienced either price corrections or a major setback as the breadth of the rally narrowed (Chart 8). However, the relationship has broken down since October last year; the number of stocks with ascending prices has fallen, while the aggregate A-share prices have risen. In other words, breadth has narrowed and the rally in the benchmark has been due to a handful of large-cap stocks.   Top performers do not have enough weight to support the broad market. An overconcentration of returns in itself may not necessarily lead to an imminent price pullback in the aggregate equity index. The five tech titans in the S&P 500 index have been dominating returns since 2015, whereas the rest of the 495 stocks in the index barely made any gains. Yet the overconcentration in just a few stocks has not stopped the S&P 500 from reaching new highs in the past five years. Unlike the tech titans which represent more than 20% of the S&P index, the overconcentration in the Chinese onshore market has been more on the sector leaders rather than on a particular sector. China’s own tech giants such as Alibaba, Tencent, and Meituan, represent 35% of China’s offshore market, but most of the sector leaders in China’s onshore market account for only two to three percent of the total equity market cap (Table 1). Given their relatively small weight in the Shanghai and Shenzhen composite indexes, it is difficult for these stocks to lift the entire A-share market if prices in all the other stocks decline sharply.  The CSI 300 Index, which aggregates some of China’s largest blue-chip companies and industry leaders, including Kweichow Moutai, Midea Group, and Ping An Insurance, is not insulated from gyrations in the aggregate A-share market. Historically, when investors crowded into those top performers, the weight from underperforming companies in the broader onshore market would create a domino effect and drag down the CSI 300 Index. In other words, the magnitude of returns on the CSI 300 Index can deviate from the broader onshore market, but not the direction of returns.  Table 1Top 10 Constituents And Their Weights In The CSI 300, Shanghai Composite, And Shenzhen Composite Indexes Chinese Stocks: Which Way Will The Winds Blow? Chinese Stocks: Which Way Will The Winds Blow? Chinese “groupthinkers” are pushing the overconcentration. With the explosive growth in mutual fund sales, Chinese institutional investors and asset managers have started to play important roles in the bull market. Unlike their Western counterparts, Chinese fund managers’ performances are ranked on a quarterly or even monthly basis by asset owners, including retail investors. As such, they face intense and constant pressure to outperform the benchmarks and their peers, and have great incentive to chase rallies in well-known companies. In a late-state bull market when uncertainties emerge and assets with higher returns are sparse, fund managers tend to group up in chasing fewer “sector winners,” driving up their share prices. Chart 9Forward Earnings Growth Has Stalled Forward Earnings Growth Has Stalled Forward Earnings Growth Has Stalled Earnings outlook fails to keep up with multiple expansions. Despite the massive stimulus last year and improving industrial profits, forward earnings growth in both the onshore and offshore equity markets rolled over by the end of last year (Chart 9). Earnings from some of China’s high-flying sectors have been mediocre (Chart 10). Even though the ROEs in the food & beverage, healthcare and aerospace sectors remain above the domestic industry benchmarks, the sharp upticks in their share prices are largely due to an expansion of forward earnings multiples rather than earnings growth (Chart 11). The stretched valuation measures suggest that investors have priced in significant earnings growth, which may be more than these industries can deliver in 2021. Chart 10Other Than Healthcare, High-Flying Sectors Have Seen Mediocre Earnings Other Than Healthcare, High-Flying Sectors Have Seen Mediocre Earnings Other Than Healthcare, High-Flying Sectors Have Seen Mediocre Earnings Chart 11Too Much Growth Priced In Too Much Growth Priced In Too Much Growth Priced In Cyclical stocks may be sniffing out a peak in the market. The performance in cyclical stocks relative to defensives in both the onshore and offshore equity markets has started to falter, after outperforming throughout 2020 (Chart 12). Historically, the strength in cyclical stocks relative to defensives corresponds with improving economic activity (and vice versa). Therefore, the recent rollover in the outperformance of cyclical stocks versus defensives indicates that China’s economic recovery and the equity rally could soon peak.   An IPO mania. New IPOs in China reached a record high last year, jumping by more than 100% from 2019. IPOs on the Shanghai, Shenzhen and Hong Kong stock exchanges together were more than half of all global IPOs in 2020. The previous rounds of explosive IPOs in China occurred in 2007, 2010/11, and 2014/15, most followed by stock market riots (Chart 13). Chart 12Cyclical Stocks May Be Sniffing Out A Peak In The Market Cyclical Stocks May Be Sniffing Out A Peak In The Market Cyclical Stocks May Be Sniffing Out A Peak In The Market Chart 13IPO Manias In The Past Have Led To Market Riots IPO Manias In The Past Have Led To Market Riots IPO Manias In The Past Have Led To Market Riots Bottom Line: Investors may be neglecting some risks and pitfalls in the Chinese equity markets, which could lead to near-term price corrections. Investment Conclusions We still hold a constructive view on Chinese stocks in the next 6 to 12 months. Yet the equity market rally has been on overdrive for the past several weeks. The higher Chinese stock prices climb in the near term, the more it will eat into upside potentials and thus push down expected returns. The divergence between forward earnings and PE expansions in Chinese stocks is reminiscent of the massive stock market boom-bust cycle in 2014/15 (Chart 14A and 14B). This is in stark contrast with the picture at the beginning of the last policy tightening cycle, which started in late 2016 (Chart 15A and 15B). Valuation is a poor timing indicator and investor sentiment is hard to pin down. Nevertheless, the wide divergence between the earnings outlook and multiples indicates that Chinese stock prices are overstretched and at risk of price setbacks. Chart 14AA Picture Looking Too Familiar A Picture Looking Too Familiar A Picture Looking Too Familiar Chart 14BA Picture Looking Too Familiar A Picture Looking Too Familiar A Picture Looking Too Familiar Chart 15AAnd A Sharp Contrast From The Last Policy Tightening Cycle And A Sharp Contrast From The Last Policy Tightening Cycle And A Sharp Contrast From The Last Policy Tightening Cycle Chart 15BAnd A Sharp Contrast From The Last Policy Tightening Cycle And A Sharp Contrast From The Last Policy Tightening Cycle And A Sharp Contrast From The Last Policy Tightening Cycle We remain cautious on the short-term prospects for the broad equity market. Investors looking to allocate more cash to Chinese stocks should wait until a price correction occurs. Jing Sima China Strategist jings@bcaresearch.com     Footnotes 1Only 20.4% of Chinese households’ total net worth is in financial assets versus the US, where the share is 42.5%. PBoC, “2019 Chinese Urban Households Assets And Liabilities Survey.” Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Our baseline view is that inflation will increase only modestly over the next few years before accelerating in the middle of the decade. Nevertheless, the risks are skewed towards an earlier and sharper increase in inflation in the US and, to a lesser extent, in the other major economies. The first round of stimulus left US households with $1.5 trillion in excess savings, equivalent to 10% of annual consumption. The stimulus deal Congress reached in December and President Biden’s proposed package would inject an additional $300 billion per month into the economy through the end of September. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the monthly output gap is $80 billion. The true number may be even lower since the CBO’s estimate does not take into account the temporary disruption to the supply side of the economy from the pandemic or the potential disincentive to work from unusually generous unemployment benefits. In and of itself, inflation is not necessarily bad for stocks. Inflation is only bad for stocks when it triggers monetary policy tightening. The bar for the Fed to raise rates is still very high, which suggests that equities will weather a temporary burst of inflation. Nevertheless, investors should hedge against the risk that inflation will surprise on the upside. This calls for reducing duration in fixed-income portfolios to below-benchmark levels, favoring inflation-protected securities over nominal bonds, and owning more real assets such as gold and farmland. Investors should also favor value stocks over growth stocks. Commodity producers are overrepresented in value indices, while banks will benefit from steeper yield curves. The Austerians Give Up In his 2011 State Of The Union Address, President Obama declared that “Families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same.” And so the government did. According to calculations by the Brookings Institution, tighter fiscal policy subtracted about 1.2 percentage points from annual GDP growth between 2011 and 2014 (Chart 1). Chart 1US Fiscal Easing Gave Way To Fiscal Drag Soon After The Great Recession Stagflation In A Few Months? Stagflation In A Few Months?   The US was not alone. As Chart 2 illustrates, most advanced economies tightened fiscal policy not long after the Great Recession officially ended. In the case of countries such as Italy and Spain, the tightening came in response to market duress. In other cases such as those involving Germany and the UK, the tightening occurred against the backdrop of fairly low borrowing costs. Chart 2Fiscal Austerity Was The Favored Post-GFC Policy Prescription Stagflation In A Few Months? Stagflation In A Few Months? After the pandemic struck, most governments were quick to loosen fiscal policy again (Chart 3). However, unlike ten years ago, calls for reducing the flow of red ink have been a lot more muted this time around. Chart 3Fiscal Policy In 2020: Governments Eased Significantly In Response To The Unfolding Crisis Stagflation In A Few Months? Stagflation In A Few Months? Back in 2010, the OECD – the go-to source for conventional thinking on all economic matters – opined that “monetary policy must be normalized” and that “exit from exceptional fiscal support must start now, or by 2011 at the latest.” Today, the OECD admits that it made a “mistake” in pushing for austerity so soon after the recession ended. “The first lesson is to make sure governments are not tightening in the one to two years following the trough of GDP” explained Laurence Boone, the OECD’s current chief economist, to the FT earlier this month. The OECD’s change of heart partly reflects political reality – assistance for businesses and workers who lost income due to lockdowns is more palatable than bailouts for banks and for homeowners who took on more debt than they could afford. Yet, there is an important economic dimension to the policy pivot as well. The huge spike in bond yields that many pundits predicted a decade ago never materialized. Despite soaring debt levels, real bond yields in the US and most other economies are near record lows (Chart 4). Even the Italian 10-year yield stands at a mere 0.68% now that the ECB has effectively promised to backstop European governments. Chart 4Governments Enjoy Low Borrowing Costs Governments Enjoy Low Borrowing Costs Governments Enjoy Low Borrowing Costs The Bondholder Who Cried Wolf Chart 5Generous Government Transfers Boosted Household Savings Generous Government Transfers Boosted Household Savings Generous Government Transfers Boosted Household Savings After many false alarms, could the inflationistas get the last laugh in 2021? The idea is not entirely far-fetched. Consider the case of the US. Chart 5 shows that US households are sitting on $1.5 trillion of excess savings – equivalent to 10% of annual consumption. The amount of dry powder US households have at their disposal will only get larger. Taken together, the stimulus deal Congress reached in December and President Biden’s proposed fiscal package would inject an average of $300 billion per month into the economy through the end of September. Republicans and centrist Democrats in the Senate may force Biden to winnow down his stimulus plans to something closer to $1 trillion. Nevertheless, this still would provide about $200 billion in incremental monthly support. Official estimates made by the Congressional Budget Office last summer imply that the monthly output gap – the difference between what the economy is capable of producing and what it actually is producing – is currently only $80 billion. In fact, the true output gap may be even lower than this. First, GDP has recovered more rapidly than the CBO had projected. Second, official estimates of the output gap do not control for the fact that part of the economy’s productive capacity – certain retail establishments, hotels, airlines, etc. – has been rendered either fully or partly inoperative due to the pandemic. Third, official estimates also do not account for the fact that generous jobless benefits may have made some workers less eager to find work, thus temporarily raising the natural rate of unemployment. Inflation: Movin’ On Up If the demand for goods and services exceeds supply, prices are likely to go up. How much will they rise? In the near term, inflation is certain to increase from very low levels, if only due to base effects. As my colleague Ryan Swift has noted, both core PCE and core CPI inflation will soon spike above 2% on an annualized basis even if consumer prices rise by a meager 0.15% per month, as the deflationary March and April 2020 data points fall out of the rolling 12-month average (Chart 6). Looking beyond the next few months, the trajectory for inflation will depend on the degree to which the economy overheats. In some categories, there is already evidence of excess demand. US core goods inflation is running at 1.6%, the highest level since 2012. The ISM manufacturing Prices Paid index points to further upside for goods inflation. Soaring commodity prices tell a similar tale (Chart 7). Chart 6Base Effects Will Push Inflation Higher Base Effects Will Push Inflation Higher Base Effects Will Push Inflation Higher   Chart 7Further Upside For Goods Inflation And Commodity Prices Further Upside For Goods Inflation And Commodity Prices Further Upside For Goods Inflation And Commodity Prices While services inflation has been more downbeat, that could change as the labor market tightens (Chart 8). Housing inflation is also set to bottom. The National Multifamily Housing Council’s Apartment Market Tightness Index remains in contractionary territory. However, the closely-linked Sales Volume Index recently jumped to the highest level in nine years (Chart 9). Sales volume led the Market Tightness Index coming out of the last recession. If that happens again, shelter inflation should creep up. Chart 8A Pickup In Services Inflation Is Awaiting A Tighter Labor Market A Pickup In Services Inflation Is Awaiting A Tighter Labor Market A Pickup In Services Inflation Is Awaiting A Tighter Labor Market Chart 9Shelter Inflation Could Bottom Soon Shelter Inflation Could Bottom Soon Shelter Inflation Could Bottom Soon     A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy? Like most macroeconomic phenomena, inflation is subject to feedback loops. If households expect prices to increase initially but then fall back down once the stimulus has lapsed, they may defer some of their spending until prices return to normal. This could prevent prices from rising in the first place. In contrast, if households expect prices to rise and then keep rising, they may try to expedite their purchases. This would supercharge spending. One can see that there is a self-fulfilling process at work. If households expect prices to remain broadly stable, then they will remain broadly stable. If households expect prices to rise a lot, then they will rise a lot. Imagine last year’s Great Toilet Paper Shortage but on an economy-wide scale. A similar self-fulfilling process works at the firm level. If firms expect prices to rise only briefly, they will try to run down their inventories as quickly as possible to take advantage of temporarily high profit margins. The additional supply will limit any increase in prices. In contrast, if firms expect selling prices to keep rising, they may hoard inventory to take advantage of future higher prices. Likewise, firms may be reluctant to raise wages in response to a temporary overheating of the economy for fear that this would lock in a higher cost structure. In contrast, firms would be more willing to raise wages if they thought that prices would keep rising. Hence, the expectation of rising inflation could trigger a price-wage spiral. Lifting The Anchor The inflationary scenario described above could play out if long-term inflation expectations become unmoored. Central banks have invested a lot of effort in trying to anchor inflation expectations at around 2%. To the extent that they have fallen short of their goal, it is because prices have risen less than desired (Chart 10). Chart 10Central Banks Have Missed Their Inflation Targets Stagflation In A Few Months? Stagflation In A Few Months? To remedy the shortfall in inflation, the Fed has pledged to allow inflation to rise above 2% for a few years, with the aim of bringing the price level back to its long-term target trend. The risk is that such an inflation overshoot happens sooner and is more pronounced than policymakers desire. Christina Romer, the former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Obama administration, famously wrote a paper entitled “It Takes A Regime Shift.” Using the example of Roosevelt’s decision to take the US off the gold standard in 1933, she argued that major monetary policy decisions could permanently jolt inflation expectations. It is too early to say whether the Fed’s new inflation-targeting framework will go down in history as a “regime shift.” What one can say with more confidence is that the rollout of this framework is coming at a tumultuous time. Policymakers and business leaders routinely talk about the “The Great Reset” – the notion that the pandemic provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to shift policy in a new, rather curious, direction. Central bankers better hope that inflation expectations are not reset too much. Investment Implications Our baseline view is that inflation will increase only modestly over the next few years before accelerating in the middle of the decade. Nevertheless, as highlighted in this week’s report, the risks are skewed towards an earlier and sharper increase in inflation in the US and, to a lesser extent, in the other major economies. The spectre of higher inflation is unsettling to many investors. However, in and of itself, inflation is not necessarily bad for stocks. Inflation is only bad for stocks when it triggers monetary policy tightening. In the absence of rate hikes, rising inflation would push real rates lower. This would be quite good for stocks, as the experience of the past nine months demonstrates (Chart 11). As noted above, the bar for the Fed to withdraw monetary support is fairly high. This suggests that rising inflation is unlikely to derail the bull market in stocks. Of course, if both actual inflation and inflation expectations were to jump too much, the Fed would have to intervene. With that in mind, investors should position their portfolios to withstand rising inflation. This calls for reducing duration in fixed-income portfolios to below-benchmark levels, favoring inflation-protected securities over nominal bonds, and owning more real assets such as gold and farmland. Chart 11Lower Real Yields Have Lifted Equity Prices Lower Real Yields Have Lifted Equity Prices Lower Real Yields Have Lifted Equity Prices Chart 12Bank Stocks Tend To Outperform When Inflation Expectations And Bond Yields Are Rising Bank Stocks Tend To Outperform When Inflation Expectations And Bond Yields Are Rising Bank Stocks Tend To Outperform When Inflation Expectations And Bond Yields Are Rising Investors should also favor value stocks over growth stocks. Commodity producers are overrepresented in value indices, and would benefit from rising inflation. Banks are also overrepresented in value indices. Chart 12 shows that banks tend to outperform when inflation expectations and long-term bond yields are rising. Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com   Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Stagflation In A Few Months? Stagflation In A Few Months? Special Trade Recommendations This table provides trade recommendations that may not be adequately represented in the matrix on the preceding page. Stagflation In A Few Months? Stagflation In A Few Months? Current MacroQuant Model Scores Stagflation In A Few Months? Stagflation In A Few Months?

Highlights Inflation: Additional fiscal stimulus will lead to higher inflation in the goods sector, where bottlenecks are already forming. But stronger services inflation is required (particularly in shelter) before broad price pressures emerge. Some leading indicators of shelter inflation suggest that a bottom may be near. Fed: The Fed will not lift rates or taper asset purchases until the unemployment rate is close to 4.5% and 12-month PCE inflation is firmly above 2%. This could occur in late-2021 if economic growth is very strong, but 2022 is more likely. Investment Strategy: Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and stay overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Nominal curve steepeners, real curve steepeners and inflation curve flatteners all continue to make sense. Feature Biden Goes Big Joe Biden unveiled his economic plan last week and, as expected, the incoming President is setting his sights high. First on the agenda is the American Rescue Plan, a $1.9 trillion package that contains $410 billion for fighting the coronavirus, $1 trillion of income support for households and $440 billion in direct aid to state & local governments. Biden will seek enough Republican support in the Senate to pass this legislation without using the budget reconciliation process. If that can be achieved, Democrats will still have two opportunities to pass reconciliation bills in 2021. Those bills will focus on other priorities such as infrastructure investment and expanding the Affordable Care Act. With households already flush with cash, an influx of new stimulus risks an earlier return of inflation than was previously anticipated. Biden’s announcement was in line with what our political strategists anticipated, and the federal deficit is on track to fall somewhere between the “Democratic Status Quo” and “Democratic High” scenarios shown in Chart 1. This means that the deficit will peak at between 22% and 25% of GDP in fiscal year 2021 before gradually converging back to the baseline. To put this number in context, the federal deficit peaked at just below 10% of GDP at the height of the Great Financial Crisis in 2009. The US economy is now on the cusp of receiving a much greater fiscal injection at a time when nominal GDP is only 2.7% off its prior peak. Chart 1Massive Fiscal Stimulus Is On The Way Trust The Fed's Forward Guidance Trust The Fed's Forward Guidance As mentioned above, the American Rescue Plan contains $1 trillion of income support for households, delivered in the form of one-time $1400 checks and an expansion of unemployment insurance benefits. This is a lot of stimulus, and it looks like even more when you consider the significant income boost that households have already received. Chart 2 shows nominal personal income relative to a pre-COVID trend. Income has been significantly above trend since last spring’s passage of the CARES act, and with fewer spending opportunities than usual, households have been building up a significant buffer of excess savings. Chart 2A Mountain Of Excess Savings A Mountain Of Excess Savings A Mountain Of Excess Savings The risk here is quite clear. With households already flush with cash, an influx of new stimulus risks an earlier return of inflation than was previously anticipated. The remainder of this report considers the likelihood of this risk materializing and what it might mean for Fed policy and our TIPS and portfolio duration recommendations. Inflation Outlook & TIPS Strategy One complication brought on by the pandemic is the stark divergence between goods and services sectors. The large fiscal response means that households have ample cash to deploy towards consumer goods, but service sectors remain shuttered. This divergence is reflected in the inflation data where price pressures are already emerging in the core goods space but services inflation (excluding shelter and medical care) remains below recent historical levels (Chart 3). Manufacturing indicators, such as the ISM Prices Paid survey and commodity prices, provide further evidence of a bottleneck in manufactured goods (Chart 4). Capacity utilization remains low, but it is rising quickly (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 3Goods Vs. Services Inflation Goods Vs. Services Inflation Goods Vs. Services Inflation Chart 4A Bottleneck In Manufacturing A Bottleneck In Manufacturing A Bottleneck In Manufacturing The split between goods and services inflation will persist until vaccination efforts gain enough traction for services to re-open, and it will only be exacerbated as more fiscal stimulus is rolled out. Households will continue to dump cash into goods, but service sector participation is likely needed before broad upward pressure on overall inflation emerges. Specifically, broad upward pressure on overall inflation will not be possible until we see a turnaround in shelter (roughly 40% of core CPI). Shelter inflation plummeted during the past year (Chart 5), but some tentative signals are emerging that suggest a bottom may occur within the next 3-6 months. Shelter inflation tends to fall when the unemployment rate is high and rise as labor slack dissipates. Shelter inflation is highly sensitive to the economic cycle. That is, it tends to fall when the unemployment rate is high and rise as labor slack dissipates. Abstracting from large swings in temporary unemployment, the permanent unemployment rate finally ticked down in December (Chart 6). If this marks an inflection point, then shelter inflation is likely close to its trough. The National Multi Housing Council’s Apartment Market Tightness Index is another excellent indicator of shelter inflation. It remains below 50, consistent with downward pressure on shelter inflation, but the tightly-linked Sales Volume Index recently jumped into “more volume” territory (Chart 6, bottom panel). Sales volume led the Market Tightness Index coming out of the last recession. If that happens again, we could soon see shelter inflation creep up Chart 5Shelter Inflation Near ##br##A Trough? Shelter Inflation Near A Trough? Shelter Inflation Near A Trough? Chart 6Shelter Inflation Is Highly Sensitive To The Economic Cycle Shelter Inflation Is Highly Sensitive To The Economic Cycle Shelter Inflation Is Highly Sensitive To The Economic Cycle It is still too soon to call a bottom in shelter inflation. However, if the permanent unemployment rate continues to fall and the Apartment Market Tightness Index follows sales volume higher, then a bottom in shelter could emerge within the next 3-6 months. TIPS Strategy Chart 7Base Effects Will Push Inflation Higher Base Effects Will Push Inflation Higher Base Effects Will Push Inflation Higher Our strategy has been to position for higher TIPS breakeven inflation rates by going long TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, with a plan to tactically reverse this position for a time once the inflation narrative reaches a fever pitch in Q1 of this year. One reason for the inflation narrative to take hold is that base effects will naturally lead to a jump in year-over-year inflation rates during the next few months as the March and April 2020 datapoints fall out of the rolling 12-month average. Chart 7 shows that both 12-month core PCE and core CPI will soon spike above 2%, even if a modest 0.15% monthly growth rate is achieved. Our expectation is that inflation pressures will wane after April of this year, potentially giving us an opportunity to position for a drop in TIPS breakeven inflation rates. However, if shelter inflation does indeed reverse course, as leading indicators suggest it might, that opportunity may not present itself. Bottom Line: Stay positioned long TIPS / short duration-equivalent nominal Treasuries and watch for further evidence of a bottom in shelter inflation within the next 3-6 months. The Fed Has Already Told Us What It Will Do It is certainly possible (even likely) that large-scale fiscal stimulus will cause inflation pressures to emerge earlier than would have otherwise been the case. However, any meaningful monetary tightening in 2021 still seems like a long shot. The potential for Fed tightening in 2021 became a hot topic last week when Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic said he’s open to the possibility of tapering asset purchases in late-2021, assuming economic growth turns out to be stronger than anticipated. Fed Chair Powell downplayed the odds of a 2021 taper in his remarks later in the week, causing bond prices to regain some lost ground. Year-over-year inflation will peak in April. Our advice is to not get caught up in the different tones of Fed speakers. The Fed has already been very explicit about the economic criteria that will cause it to tighten policy. Any evaluation of when tightening will occur should be based on an assessment of the economic data relative to these criteria, not on whether certain Fed officials sound more or less optimistic about the future. Tapering & The Timing Of Liftoff Chart 8No Liftoff Until We Reach Full Employment No Liftoff Until We Reach Full Employment No Liftoff Until We Reach Full Employment Our “Fed In 2021” Special Report laid out the three criteria that must be met before the Fed will consider lifting the funds rate.1  Fed Vice-Chair Richard Clarida reiterated this checklist in a recent speech.2 Before lifting rates: 12-month PCE inflation must be 2% or higher Labor market conditions must have reached levels consistent with the Fed’s assessment of maximum employment PCE inflation must be on track to moderately exceed 2% for some time 12-month core PCE inflation is currently 1.38%. As we already noted, it will likely jump above 2% by April but Fed officials will not view that increase as sustainable. The elevated unemployment rate is a big reason why. At 6.7%, the unemployment rate remains well above the range of 3.5% to 4.5% that Fed officials view as consistent with full employment (Chart 8). In his speech, Vice-Chair Clarida said that when “labor market indicators return to a range that, in the Committee’s judgment, is broadly consistent with its maximum-employment mandate, it will be data on inflation itself that policy will react to.” In other words, liftoff will not occur until the unemployment rate is between 3.5% and 4.5%, no matter what happens with inflation. Then, even when the “full employment” criterion has been met, 12-month PCE inflation must still rise above 2% before a rate hike will be considered. The guidance around the tapering of asset purchases is vaguer than the guidance around liftoff. All we know is that the Fed intends to start tapering asset purchases before it lifts the funds rate. Since Fed officials know that a tapering announcement will send a signal that liftoff is imminent, it is highly likely that tapering will occur only a few months before the Fed expects to raise rates. In all likelihood, the unemployment rate will be close to 4.5% before tapering is considered. This could happen by late-2021 if economic growth is very strong, as President Bostic suggested, but a 2022 tapering seems like a safer bet. The Pace Of Rate Hikes Once liftoff occurs, Vice-Chair Clarida has been very clear that inflation expectations will be the principal factor guiding the pace of policy tightening. Specifically, if long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates are below the 2.3 to 2.5 percent range that has historically been consistent with “well anchored” inflation expectations, policy tightening will proceed more slowly than if breakevens are threatening to break above 2.5% (Chart 9). Other measures of inflation expectations based on surveys and inflation’s long-run trend will also be considered (Chart 10). Chart 9TIPS ##br##Breakevens TIPS Breakevens TIPS Breakevens Chart 10Inflation Expectations: Survey And Trend Measures Inflation Expectations: Survey And Trend Measures Inflation Expectations: Survey And Trend Measures The indicators of inflation expectations shown in Charts 9 & 10 are currently below “well-anchored” levels. However, this may not be the case when the Fed is finally ready to raise rates off the zero bound. In fact, when we look at the amount of policy tightening currently priced into the yield curve, we see a good chance that it will be exceeded. The market is currently priced for liftoff to occur in mid-2023, followed by only two more 25 basis point rate hikes over the subsequent 18 months (Chart 11). Chart 11Market Priced For Mid-2023 Liftoff Market Priced For Mid-2023 Liftoff Market Priced For Mid-2023 Liftoff With all the fiscal stimulus coming down the pipe, we can easily envision liftoff occurring sometime in 2022, followed by a somewhat quicker pace of tightening. With that forecast in mind, investors should maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Fed In 2021”, dated December 22, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/clarida20210113a.htm Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Even though bonds have cheapened relative to stocks, the equity risk premium remains elevated. The end of the pandemic and supportive fiscal and monetary policies should buoy economic activity in the second half of the year, lifting corporate earnings in the process. Some critics charge that low interest rates and QE have exacerbated wealth and income inequality. The evidence suggests the opposite: Rising inequality since the early 1980s has depressed aggregate demand, forcing central banks to loosen monetary policy. The tide of inequality may be turning, however. Ongoing fiscal and monetary stimulus, increasingly aggressive income distribution policies, heightened anti-trust enforcement, and waning globalization could all shift the balance of power from capital back to labor. Investors should overweight global equities for now but prepare for a more stagflationary environment later this decade. Market Overview We continue to favor global equities over bonds on a 12-month horizon. While bonds have cheapened relative to stocks, the global equity risk premium is still quite wide by historic standards (Chart 1). The distribution of vaccines over the coming months should pave the way for a strong rebound in economic activity in the second half of 2021. This will lift corporate earnings. The macro policy mix will also remain supportive. Thanks to the combination of increased fiscal transfers and subdued spending last year, US households have accumulated $1.5 trillion in savings – equivalent to 10% of annual consumption – over and above the pre-pandemic trend (Chart 2). Chart 1Equity Risk Premia Remain Elevated Equity Risk Premia Remain Elevated Equity Risk Premia Remain Elevated Chart 2Households Have Accumulated Lots Of Savings, Which Should Help Propel Future Spending Households Have Accumulated Lots Of Savings, Which Should Help Propel Future Spending Households Have Accumulated Lots Of Savings, Which Should Help Propel Future Spending   US household balance sheets are set to improve further. Congress passed a $900 billion stimulus bill in December, which provides direct support to households, unemployed workers, and small businesses. On Thursday, President-elect Joe Biden unveiled an additional $1.9 trillion relief package. Biden’s plan calls for making direct payments of $1400 to most Americans, bringing the total to $2000 after the $600 in direct payments in December’s deal is included. President Trump had earlier called for stimulus payments of $2000 per person, a number the Democrats quickly seized on. Biden’s plan would also extend emergency unemployment benefits to the end of September, boost funding for schools, raise the child tax credit, and increase spending on Covid testing and the vaccine rollout. Unlike the December deal, it would also provide $350 billion in assistance to state and local governments. We expect at least $1 trillion of Biden’s proposal to be enacted into law. A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you are talking big money. Admittedly, taxes are also likely to rise. During the election campaign, Joe Biden pledged to lift the corporate income tax rate from 21% to 28%, bringing it halfway back to the 35% rate that prevailed in 2017. He also promised to introduce a minimum 15% tax on the income that companies report in their financial statements to shareholders, raise taxes on overseas profits, and boost payroll taxes on households with annual earnings in excess of $400,000. If carried out, these measures would reduce S&P 500 earnings-per-share by 9%-to-10%. Given the slim majority that Democrats maintain in the Senate, it is unlikely that taxes will rise as much as Joe Biden’s tax plan calls for. Nevertheless, a tax hit to EPS of around 5% starting in 2022 looks probable. On the positive side, the additional spending will goose the economy, so that the net effect of the tax increase on corporate profits should be fairly small. Meanwhile, monetary policy will remain exceptionally accommodative. The Fed is unlikely to hike rates until late 2023 or early 2024. It will take even longer for policy rates to rise in the other major economies. Our bond strategists think that the Fed will start tapering QE only about six months before the first rate hike. Hence, for the time being, ongoing bond buying will limit the upside to yields. We see the US 10-year Treasury yield rising to 1.5% by the end of this year, only modestly higher than market expectations of 1.36%. Rising Inequality: The Dark Side Of QE? Chart 3Inequality Has Risen Across Major Developed Economies Inequality Has Risen Across Major Developed Economies Inequality Has Risen Across Major Developed Economies One often-heard objection to QE is that it has exacerbated inequality by pushing up equity prices without doing much to help the real economy. Some even contend that QE has hurt the middle class by depriving savers of a critical source of interest income. It is certainly true that inequality has risen sharply over the past 40 years, especially in the US (Chart 3). It is also true that the bulk of equity wealth is held by the very rich. According to Fed data, the wealthiest top 1% own half of all stocks (Chart 4). However, QE has pushed up not only equity prices. Falling bond yields have also pushed up home prices. Unlike stocks, housing wealth is broadly held across the population. Moreover, monetary policy operates through other channels. Lower interest rates tend to weaken a country’s currency, boosting competitiveness in the process. Lower rates also encourage investment. Again, real estate figures heavily here. Chart 5 shows that there is a very strong correlation between mortgage yields and housing starts. And while lower interest rates do penalize savers, the middle class is not the main victim. Interest receipts represent a much larger share of total income for ultra-wealthy individuals than for everyone else (Chart 6).   Chart 4The Rich Hold The Bulk Of Equities Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Chart 5Strong Correlation Between Mortgage Rates And Housing Activity Strong Correlation Between Mortgage Rates And Housing Activity Strong Correlation Between Mortgage Rates And Housing Activity Chart 6Interest Represents A Bigger Share Of Overall Income At The Top Of The Income Distribution Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Far from exacerbating income inequality, a recent IMF research paper argued that easier monetary policy may dampen inequality by boosting employment and wage growth. Chart 7 shows that labor’s share of GDP has tended to rise whenever the labor market tightened.   Chart 7Rising Labor Share Of Income Occurring Alongside Labor Market Tightening Rising Labor Share Of Income Occurring Alongside Labor Market Tightening Rising Labor Share Of Income Occurring Alongside Labor Market Tightening Inequality Paved The Way To QE Chart 8The Rich Save More Than The Poor Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Rather than QE exacerbating inequality, a more plausible story is that rising inequality led to QE. The rich tend to save more than the poor (Chart 8). Consistent with estimates by the IMF, we find that the shift in income towards the rich has depressed US aggregate demand by about 3% of GDP since the late 1970s (Chart 9). A standard Taylor Rule equation suggests that real interest rates would need to be 1.5-to-3 percentage points lower to offset a 3% loss in demand.1 That’s a lot! Thus, not only have the rich benefited directly from receiving a bigger share of the economic pie, they have also benefited indirectly from the fact that falling interest rates have pushed up the value of their assets.   Chart 9Rising Inequality Has Depressed Consumption By 3% Of GDP Since The Early 1980s Rising Inequality Has Depressed Consumption By 3% Of GDP Since The Early 1980s Rising Inequality Has Depressed Consumption By 3% Of GDP Since The Early 1980s For a while, lower rates allowed poorer households to take on more debt, thus masking the impact of rising income inequality on consumption. However, after the housing bubble burst, households were forced to retrench and start living within their means. The resulting collapse in spending pushed interest rates towards zero and forced the Fed to undertake one QE program after another. It Is Not About Education Many of the popular explanations for rising inequality have focused on the widening gap between well-educated and less well-educated workers. While there is evidence that the demand for skilled workers increased in the 1980s and 1990s, Beaudry, Green, and Sand have shown that it has declined since then. Together with a rising supply of college-educated workers, softer demand for skilled workers compressed the so-called “skill premium.” So why has inequality increased? One can get a sense of the answer by looking at Chart 10. It shows that almost all the increase in US real incomes has occurred not just near the top of the income distribution, but at the very very top – people in the highest 0.1% of income earners. These are not university professors. These are hedge fund managers and corporate chieftains, with a sprinkling of celebrities (Chart 11). Chart 10The (Really) Rich Got Richer Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Chart 11Who Are The Top Income Earners? Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Superstars In his seminal paper entitled “The Economics of Superstars,” Sherwin Rosen argued that technological trends have facilitated the rise of winner-take-all markets. The classic example is that of stage actors. A century ago, tens of thousands of actors could eke out a living performing at the local theater. Today, a small number of superstars dominate the entertainment industry, while countless others work odd jobs, waiting in vain for their chance for stardom. A similar argument applies to professional athletes. The applicability of the superstar model to other classes of workers is more debatable. How much of the income of star hedge fund managers reflects their unique skills and how much of it reflects a “heads I win, tails you lose” approach to investing client money? Similarly, do CEOs get paid what they do because there is no one else who can do the same job with less pay? Or is it because CEOs can effectively set their own compensation, subject to an “outrage constraint” from shareholders and the broader public — a constraint that has loosened in recent decades due to rising stock prices and a shift in public attention away from class issues towards the debilitating distraction of identity politics? The Rise Of Monopoly Capitalism Where the superstar model may be more relevant is at the firm level. Standard economics textbooks treat profit as a return on capital. This implies that when the after-tax rate of return on capital goes up, firms should respond by increasing investment spending in order to further boost profits. In practice, this has not occurred. For example, the Trump Administration promised that corporate tax cuts would produce an investment boom. Yet, outside of the energy sector – which benefited from an unrelated recovery in crude oil prices – US corporate capex grew more slowly between Q4 of 2016 and Q4 of 2019 than it did over the preceding three years (Chart 12). Why did the textbook economic relationship between investment and the rate of return on capital break down? The answer is that the textbook approach ignores what has become an increasingly important source of corporate profits: monopoly power. Chart 12No Evidence That Trump Corporate Tax Cuts Boosted Investment Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around   Chart 13A Winner-Take-All Economy A Winner-Take-All Economy A Winner-Take-All Economy A recent study by Grullon, Larkin, and Michaely finds that market concentration has increased in 75% of all US industries since 1997. Furman and Orszag have shown that the dispersion in the rate of return on capital across firms has widened sharply since the early 1990s. In the last year of their analysis, firms at the 90th percentile of profitability had a rate of return on capital that was five times higher than the median firm, a massive increase from the historic average of two times (Chart 13).   The rise of monopoly power has been most evident in the tech sector. Over the past 25 years, rising tech profit margins have contributed more to tech share outperformance than rising sales (Chart 14). Chart 14Decomposing Tech Outperformance Decomposing Tech Outperformance Decomposing Tech Outperformance Tech companies are particularly susceptible to network effects: The more people who use a particular tech platform, the more attractive it is for others to use it. Facebook is a classic example. Tech companies also benefit significantly from scale economies. Once a piece of software has been written, creating additional copies costs almost nothing. Even in the hardware realm, the marginal cost of producing an additional chip is tiny compared to the fixed cost of designing it. All of this creates a winner-take-all environment where success begets further success. Monopolies And The Neutral Rate Unlike firms in a perfectly competitive industry, monopolistic firms have to contend with the fact that higher output tends to depress selling prices, thus leading to lower profit margins. As such, rising market power may simultaneously increase profits while reducing investment spending. This may be deflationary in two ways: First, lower investment will reduce aggregate demand. Second, greater market power will shift income towards wealthy owners of capital, who tend to save more than regular workers. An increase in savings relative to investment, in turn, will depress the neutral rate of interest. An Inflection Point For Inequality? After rising for the past four decades, inequality may be set to decline. Central banks are keen to allow economies to overheat. A feedback loop could emerge where overheated economies push up labor’s share of income, leading to more spending and even higher wages. Fiscal policy is likely to amplify this feedback loop. As we discussed last week, loose monetary policy is allowing governments to pursue expansionary fiscal policies. Fiscal stimulus raises the neutral rate of interest, making it easier for central banks to keep policy rates below their equilibrium level. Government policy is also moving in a more redistributive direction. Tax rates on high-income earnings will rise over the next few years, which will support new spending initiatives. Minimum wages are also heading higher. It is worth noting that Florida voters, despite handing the state to President Trump in November, voted 61%-to-39% to raise the state minimum wage from $8.56 an hour to $15 by 2026. Joe Biden also reaffirmed today his pledge to hike the federal minimum wage to $15 from its current level of $7.25. In addition, there is bipartisan support for strengthening anti-trust policies. On the left, Senator Elizabeth Warren has stated that “Today’s big tech companies have too much power – too much power over our economy, our society, and our democracy.” Increasingly, Republicans agree with this sentiment. According to a Pew Research study conducted last June, more than half of conservative Republicans favor increasing government regulation of tech companies (Chart 15). This number has probably gone up following last week’s coordinated effort by the largest tech companies to banish Parler, a Twitter-style app popular with conservatives, from the internet. Chart 15Conservatives Favor Increased Government Regulation Of Big Tech Companies Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Meanwhile, globalization is on the back foot. After rising significantly, the ratio of global trade-to-output has been flat for over a decade (Chart 16). As competition from foreign workers abates, working-class wages in advanced economies could rise. Chart 16Globalization Plateaued More Than A Decade Ago Globalization Plateaued More Than A Decade Ago Globalization Plateaued More Than A Decade Ago Long-Term Investment Implications What is good for Main Street is usually good for Wall Street. For the past 70 years, the S&P 500 has generally moved in sync with the ISM manufacturing index (Chart 17). The same pattern holds globally. Chart 18 shows that the stock-to-bond ratio has correlated closely with the global manufacturing PMI. Chart 17Strong Correlation Between Economic Growth And Stocks Strong Correlation Between Economic Growth And Stocks Strong Correlation Between Economic Growth And Stocks Cyclical fluctuations can disguise important structural trends, however. US productivity has doubled since 1980, but real median wages have increased by only 20% (Chart 19). The bulk of productivity gains have flowed to upper-income earners and owners of capital. Hence, corporate profits rose, while inflation and interest rates declined. Chart 18Stocks Rarely Underperform Bonds When The Global Economy Is Strengthening Stocks Rarely Underperform Bonds When The Global Economy Is Strengthening Stocks Rarely Underperform Bonds When The Global Economy Is Strengthening Chart 19Real Median Wages Failed To Keep Up With Productivity Real Median Wages Failed To Keep Up With Productivity Real Median Wages Failed To Keep Up With Productivity   If we are approaching an inflection point for inequality, we may also be approaching an inflection point for profit margins and bond yields. To be sure, with unemployment still elevated, wage growth and inflation are not about to take off anytime soon. However, investors should prepare for a more inflationary – and ultimately, stagflationary – environment in the second half of the decade. This calls for reducing duration risk in fixed-income portfolios, favoring TIPS over nominal bonds, and owning inflation hedges such as gold and farmland. It also calls for maintaining a bias towards value over growth stocks, as the former usually outperform when inflation and commodity prices are on the upswing (Chart 20). Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Chart 20Value Stocks Usually Outperform When Commodity Prices Are On The Upswing Value Stocks Usually Outperform When Commodity Prices Are On The Upswing Value Stocks Usually Outperform When Commodity Prices Are On The Upswing   Footnotes 1 One can specify different parameters to weight the inflation and capacity utilization segments of a Taylor rule equation so that they are equally-weighted, meaning there is a coefficient of 0.5 on the gap between the year-over-year percent change in headline PCE and the Fed's 2% target and a coefficient of 0.5 on the output gap term. Previous Fed Chair and incoming Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen preferred an alternative specification where there was a coefficient of 1 on the output gap term so that the equation is as follows: RT= 2 + PT + 0.5(PT- 2) + 1.0YT, where R is the federal funds rate; P is headline PCE as expressed as a year-over-year percent change; and Y is the output gap (as approximated using the unemployment gap and Okun's law). For further discussion, please see Janet L. Yellen, "The Economic Outlook and Monetary Policy," April 11, 2012. Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Special Trade Recommendations Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Current MacroQuant Model Scores Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around Inequality Led To QE, Not The Other Way Around

Your feedback is important to us. Please take our client survey today. Highlights Mounting populism has created a structural tailwind behind inflation. The risk that inflation accelerates quickly is greater than the market appreciates. Monetary dynamics strongly influence consumer prices when inflation is stationary. The Federal Reserve’s back-door monetization of debt is inflationary. Financial assets do not embed a sufficiently large risk premium against higher inflation. The long-term, real returns of equities are likely to be poor. Small cap stocks and commodities offer cheap protection against higher inflation. Feature The equity market is extremely vulnerable to positive inflation surprises. The expectation of an extended period of low interest rates and extraordinarily easy monetary policy is the crucial justification for the S&P 500’s exceptionally elevated multiples. Anything that could threaten this policy set up would create a danger for stocks. Whether the mean of inflation in a given period is stationary will determine the influence that money has on inflation. The problem for the S&P 500 is that investors assign a much-too-small probability to the inflation risk, especially as structural and political forces point to an elevated chance that inflation will reach 3% to 5% within the next 10 years. There is also a non-trivial probability that inflation begins rising significantly faster than the market anticipates, even if it is not BCA Research’s base case. The dichotomy between the low odds of a quick turnaround in inflation embedded in financial asset prices and the inflationary threat created by monetary and fiscal choices is too large. It will force market participants to assign a greater inflation risk premium in bonds and stocks to protect against this eventuality. This process could precipitate painful corrections in both bond and equity prices. The good news is that inflation protection remains cheap. Three Stages Of Inflation The staggering recent increase in money supply and the extraordinary fiscal stimulus rolled out this year raise two questions: Are we exiting the recent period of low and stable inflation that has prevailed? Is inflation becoming a threat to financial asset prices? Major turning points in inflation provide context to assess the risk of an impending threat of increased inflation. From a statistical perspective, three phases in inflation dynamics have defined the past 100 years (Chart I-1): Chart I-1Three Stages Of Inflation Three Stages Of Inflation Three Stages Of Inflation 1922 to 1965: Inflation gyrated violently from as low as -12.1% to as high as 11.9% in response to various shocks such as the Great Depression or World War II. Nonetheless, inflation’s mean was stationary or trendless. 1965 to 1998: A period of great upheaval when inflation trended strongly, moving up until 1980 and then down until 1998. 1998 to present: Inflation has been stable, flatlining between 0.6% and 2.9%. Chart I-2More Often Than Not, Money Matters More Often Than Not, Money Matters More Often Than Not, Money Matters Empirically speaking, whether the mean of inflation in a given period is stationary will determine the influence that money has on inflation. The era of stationary inflation from 1922 to 1965 saw M2 closely correlated with changes in US consumer prices, but the link was severed from 1965 to 1998 when inflation trended strongly (Chart I-2, top and bottom panel). When inflation stabilized again from 1998 to 2020, M2 growth again explained gyrations in consumer prices (Chart I-2, bottom panel). Why did inflation behave differently from 1965 to 1998 compared with other episodes in the past 100 years? The defining factor of the pre-1965 era was an adherence to the gold standard. The gold standard created a hard anchor on prices because its rigidity made monetary policy credible, which produced stable inflation expectations. The velocity of money was also steady. Consequently, using the Fisher formulation of the equation of exchange (Price*Output = Money*Velocity or PY=MV), inflation became a direct derivative of the money supply. Various shocks such as a war or a depression would impact the rate of expansion of money, leading to a nearly linear effect on prices. When we examine unstable inflation from 1965 to 1998, it helps if we split the period into two subsamples: 1965 to 1977 and 1977 to 1998. The first interval generated accelerating inflation due to a multitude of factors. In the mid-1960s, slack in the US economy disappeared while demand became excessive as a result of the federal government’s increased spending from The Great Society programs and the Vietnam War. Additionally, by 1965, the gold standard was under attack. The US current account disappeared between 1965 and 1969. Worried by the deteriorating US balance of payment dynamics, French President De Gaulle sent his navy to repatriate France’s gold at the New York Fed. Other countries followed suit. The continued pressure on the US balance of payments, along with the need for easier monetary policy following the 1970 recession, lead to the 1971 Smithsonian Agreement whereby President Nixon unpegged the dollar from gold, effectively killing the gold standard. Any semblance of monetary rectitude disappeared and inflation expectations began to drift up. The oil shock of 1973 fueled the inflationary dynamics and pushed inflation higher through the rest of the decade. The developments outside of monetary policy reinforced downward pressure on inflation expectations created by the Fed’s orthodoxy. The second interval began in 1977, three years before inflation peaked. This date marks the implementation of the Federal Reserve Reform Act, which modified the Fed’s mandate from only targeting full employment to full employment and stable inflation. At first, the Act had little practical impact until Paul Volker became Fed chair in 1979 and began to combat inflation. Prior to 1977, the unemployment rate was below NAIRU (the unemployment rate consistent with full employment) most of the time, the economy overheated and ultimately, inflation trended up (Chart I-3). However, since 1977, the unemployment rate has mostly been above NAIRU and the labor market has predominantly experienced excess slack. Consequently, inflation expectations re-anchored to the downside and realized inflation collapsed. Chart I-3The Effect Of The Federal Reserve Reform Act Of 1977 The Effect Of The Federal Reserve Reform Act Of 1977 The Effect Of The Federal Reserve Reform Act Of 1977 Chart I-4The Monetarist Fed: 1977 to 1998 The Monetarist Fed: 1977 to 1998 The Monetarist Fed: 1977 to 1998 The relationship between short rates and money supply provides another way to appreciate the change in monetary policy after 1977. The Fed opted for a monetarist approach (officially and unofficially) when it had to combat high realized and expected inflation. During most of the past 100 years, money supply changes and short rates were either negatively correlated or not linked at all (Chart I-4, top and second panel); however, they began to move together from 1979 to 1998 (Chart I-4, bottom panel). The Fed boosted rates to preempt the inflationary impact of faster money supply expansion, which curtailed the link between prices and M2. Between 1977 and 1998, major structural forces also pushed down inflation and severed the bond between money supply and CPI. Starting with President Reagan, a period of aggressive deregulation and union-busting increased competition and removed some pricing power from labor.1 Most importantly, the rapid widening in globalization resulted in international trade representing an ever-climbing portion of global GDP. By adding more people to the global network of supply chains, globalization further entrenched the loss of workers’ pricing power, which caused wages to lag productivity and decline as a share of national income (Chart I-5). The developments outside of monetary policy reinforced downward pressure on inflation expectations created by the Fed’s orthodoxy. In the final phase from 1998 to 2020, the stabilization of inflation reunited prices and money supply. Inflation flattened due to several factors. By 1998, 70% of the global population lived in a capitalist system (compared to market shares only 28% in 1977). Thus, most of the expansion of the global labor supply was completed. China entered the WTO only in 2001, but it had been exerting its deflationary influence for many years by stealing market share away from newly industrialized Asian economies. Additionally, following the Asian Crisis of 1997, many Asian economies (including China and Japan) elected to build large dollar FX reserves to contain their currencies versus the USD, and subsidize economic activity. This process created some stability in global goods prices and slowed the USD’s depreciation started in 2002. In response to these influences, inflation expectations stabilized in the late 1990s, creating an anchor for realized inflation (Chart I-6). Thanks to this steadiness in inflation expectations, the Phillips curve (the inverse link between wages and the unemployment rate) flattened. The economy entered a feedback loop where consistent inflation rates begat stable wages, which in turn created more stability in aggregate prices. Fluctuations in the rate of inflation became directly linked to changes in the output gap and thus, variations in demand. Importantly, the flat Phillips curve and the well-anchored inflation expectations freed the Fed to maintain easier policy during expansions and allow money supply to expand in line with money demand. Chart I-5Expanding Globalization Robbed Labor Of Its Bargaining Power Expanding Globalization Robbed Labor Of Its Bargaining Power Expanding Globalization Robbed Labor Of Its Bargaining Power Chart I-6The Anchoring Of Inflation Expectations The Anchoring Of Inflation Expectations The Anchoring Of Inflation Expectations   Bottom Line: The correlation between inflation and M2 growth since 1998 is as relevant as it was from 1922 to 1965. What The Future Holds Structurally, inflation will likely trend higher. The Median Voter Theory (MVT), developed by Anthony Downs and upheld by our Geopolitical Strategy service as the key constraint on global and US policymakers, is at the heart of our position. Over the past 40 years, income and wealth inequalities have soared worldwide, especially in the US and the UK, which have both embraced ‘laissez-faire’ capitalism enthusiastically. Moreover, these countries also suffer from pronounced levels of intergenerational social immobility.2 The effect of these aforementioned trends has become so pervasive that life expectancy for a large swath of the US population is decreasing (Chart I-7). The shift by median voters to the left on economic matters will force greater fiscal profligacy and regulatory rigidity. This policy mix will add a secular drift to inflation. In response to widening inequalities, voter preferences have shifted to the left on economic matters and toward populism. Brexit and the election of President Trump both fit this pattern because they represent the repudiation of the prevalent neoliberal discourse that pushed toward more globalization, more immigration and more deregulation. Moreover, voters in the UK and the US increasingly doubt the benefits of free trade (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Inequalities Are Physically Hurting Many US Voters November 2020 November 2020 Chart I-8Free Trade Is Out… November 2020 November 2020   Attitudes toward the government’s role in the economy have also changed. Voters in the US are much more open than they were 10 or 20 years ago to a greater involvement of the public sector in the economy. Additionally, support toward socialism has become more widespread among various demographic groups (Chart I-9). The MVT posits that politicians who want to access or remain in power must cater to voter preferences. Hence, when compared with the Great Financial Crisis, the swift fiscal policy easing that accompanied the COVID-19 recession illustrates the understanding by politicians that spending is popular, especially in times of crisis (Chart I-10). Chart I-9…But State Intervention Is In November 2020 November 2020 Chart I-10Politicians Deliver What Voters Want November 2020 November 2020   Greater government spending and larger fiscal deficits are used to achieve faster nominal growth. When the output gap is negative, public spending helps the economy and may even increase national savings. However, if profligacy continues after the economy has reached full employment, it generates excess demand relative to aggregate supply and puts downward pressure on the national savings rate. This is inflationary. To redistribute income toward the middle class, populists aim to diminish competition in the economy. They reregulate the economy, which indirectly protects workers. They also limit global trade flows as much as possible. Free trade is good for the economy, but it puts downward pressure on the price of goods relative to services. Therefore, to remain competitive domestic goods producers must compress their labor costs, which either hurts wages for middle-class workers or destroys the number of manufacturing jobs with high wages. Undoing this process raises labor costs and undermines a major deflationary influence on the economy. Tax policy is another tool to force a redistribution of income and wealth toward the middle class. We should expect increased taxes on higher-income households. This process puts more money in the pockets of a middle class whose marginal propensity to consume is around 95% to 99% compared with 50% to 60% for households at the top of the income distribution. Re-shuffling the composition of national income toward the middle class will boost demand and puts upward pressure on consumer prices. Central banks are not immune to the preference of the median voter. As we showed earlier, the Fed Reform Act of 1977 had a meaningful impact on inflation, but only after Volcker took the helm of the FOMC. Given the damages wrought by high inflation in the 1970s, the median voter wanted to see less inflation, which enabled Volcker’s hawkish shift. As Marko Papic argued in a recent BCA Research webcast,3 a minority of voters (and policymakers) remember the pain created by inflation, but everyone is aware of the difficulties created by low nominal growth. Moreover, the Fed is still a creature of Congress and the median voter’s preferences greatly affect the legislative body’s decisions. Consequently, the Fed’s policy stance will likely become structurally looser in response to indirect voter pressure. Inflation accelerates when the Fed expands money supply faster than the federal government sucks in liquidity via its deficit. The Fed’s recent adoption of an average inflation mandate fits within this paradigm. According to its new strategy, the Fed will start tightening policy after the unemployment gap has closed and inflation is above 2%. This is reminiscent of the model prior to 1977 (when full employment conditions were paramount), which generated a significant inflation upside. Bottom Line: The shift by median voters to the left on economic matters will force greater fiscal profligacy and regulatory rigidity. It will also contribute to a more dovish bias by central banks. This policy mix will add a secular drift to inflation. What About Now? Markets may be failing to recognize the risk that inflation will rise sooner rather than later. Low yields, subpar inflation expectations, dovish central bank pricing and the valuation premium of growth relative to value stocks already reflect the strong deflationary force created by a deeply negative output gap. Thus, a quicker-than-expected recovery in inflation threatens the financial markets. Our structural inflation view is not the source of this danger. The hidden, near-term inflationary risk arises because we are still in an environment where broad money matters because inflation remains stationary. M2 is expanding at 23.7%, its fastest rate on record. If relationships of the past 20-plus years hold, then this is a warning sign for inflation. The catalyst to crystalize the structural inflationary pressures created by economic populism may be the loose monetary and fiscal conditions caused by the COVID-19 recession. Chart I-11The Real Near-term Inflation Risk The Real Near-term Inflation Risk The Real Near-term Inflation Risk This view may seem simplistic in light of the current large output gap, but when fiscal policy is included in the assessment, the picture becomes clearer. Since 1998, the gap between the expansion of M2 and the issuance of debt to the public by the federal government has explained inflation better than broad money alone (Chart I-11). Inflation accelerates when the Fed expands money supply faster than the federal government sucks in liquidity via its deficit. However, inflation decelerates when the Fed expands the money supply slower than the public sector pulls in private funds. In other words, if the Fed eases monetary conditions enough to finance the deficit, then debt monetization occurs, the private sector is not crowded out and demand gets a massive boost. This point is crucial and feeds the stronger economic recovery compared with the one post-GFC. In 2009 and 2010, the private sector was deleveraging and commercial banks were retrenching their lending. Neither the demand for nor the supply of credit was ample. Therefore, the Fed’s rapid balance sheet expansion had a limited impact on broad money. Instead, it skewed the composition of M2 toward commercial bank excess reserves at the Fed and away from private-sector deposits. Broad money was not rising quickly enough to fully finance the government and real interest rates did not fall as far as they should have. The economy suffered. A virtuous cycle has emerged, one which creates more inflation risks than are priced in. Nowadays, broad money responds much better to the Fed’s intervention because the balance sheets of the nonfinancial private sector are much healthier than in 2008 and deleveraging is absent. This mitigates the tightening credit standards of commercial banks. As Chart I-12 illustrates, household net worth is more robust than it was 12 years ago, debt-servicing costs account for a much narrower slice of disposable income and the government’s aggressive actions have bolstered household finances. Moreover, the majority of job losses have been concentrated in low-income jobs, thus, above-average earners have kept their incomes. Under these conditions, households have taken advantage of record low mortgage rates to purchase real estate, which is contributing to growth in the residential sector (Chart I-13, top two panels). Meanwhile, the rapid rebound in businesses’ capex intentions (which even small firms exhibit) and in core capital goods orders indicates that animal spirits are much more vigorous than anyone expected this past spring (Chart I-13, bottom two panels). At that time, the dominant narrative posited that firms were tapping their credit lines to set aside cash. Chart I-12Robust Household Balance Sheets = No Liquidity Trap Robust Household Balance Sheets = No Liquidity Trap Robust Household Balance Sheets = No Liquidity Trap Chart I-13Housing And Capex Are In The Driver's Seat Housing And Capex Are In The Driver's Seat Housing And Capex Are In The Driver's Seat   Chart I-14Unlike In 2008/09, Real Rates Have Collapsed Unlike In 2008/09, Real Rates Have Collapsed Unlike In 2008/09, Real Rates Have Collapsed Thanks to these more favorable balance sheet dynamics, the Fed’s injection of liquidity is boosting M2 enough to finance the Treasury’s issuance. Hence, real interest rates are much lower than in 2009/10 even if the economy is recovering much more quickly (Chart I-14). Policymakers are not crowding out the private sector. A virtuous cycle has emerged, one which creates more inflation risks than are priced in. A counterargument is that technology is too deflationary for the above dynamics to matter. The reality is that technology is always a deflationary force. The expansion of the capital stock has always been about providing each worker with access to newer and better technology to boost productivity. The current low level of productivity gains suggests that the dominant discourse exaggerates the economic advances from new technologies. Thus, inflation stationarity and the interplay between monetary and fiscal policy still matters to CPI. Investors should monitor factors that would indicate if the upside risk to near-term inflation described above is morphing into reality. Doing so would seriously damage financial asset prices made vulnerable to higher inflation by prohibitive valuations. We propose tracking the following variables: The household savings rate. If savings normalize faster because consumer confidence firms, then spending will accelerate, profits will rise more quickly and money will expand further, all of which will bring back inflation sooner. A Blue Sweep in the US presidential election. If the Democrats take control of both the executive and legislative branches, then they will expand stimulating policies that will bolster demand. This, too, would boost profits and broad money supply, which would be inflationary. The velocity of money. An increase in money velocity, which remains depressed, would accentuate the impact of rapid money growth. It would also suggest that animal spirits are strengthening, which will further encourage economic transactions. A weak dollar. The dollar is set to weaken because of savings dynamics and the global recovery. A runaway decline in the USD would indicate that the interplay between monetary and fiscal policy is debasing money, unleashing an inflationary spiral.  Bottom Line: The probability that inflation returns quickly is much more meaningful than financial markets appreciate because of the interplay between money growth, fiscal deficits and robust private-sector balance sheets. This dissonance will create a substantial risk for asset prices next year. Investment Implications The most important implication of the analysis above is that investors should consider inflation protection in all asset classes. However, this protection is cheap to acquire because investors are focusing on deflation, not inflation. Chart I-15Inflation Protection Remains Cheap Inflation Protection Remains Cheap Inflation Protection Remains Cheap Bonds Our bond strategists recently moved to a below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios in light of the economic recovery and the increasing probability of a Blue Wave on November 3, an argument highlighted in the Section II Special Report written by our colleagues Rob Robis and Ryan Swift. The Fed’s new average-inflation target, coupled with the global economic recovery, should put upward pressure on inflation breakeven rates, which are still well below 2.3%-2.5% normally associated with stable inflation near 2% (Chart I-15). The underestimated upward risk to inflation further favors climbing yields. Beyond lifting inflation breakeven rates, this risk would also raise inflation uncertainty, which warrants a greater term premium and a steeper yield curve (Chart I-16). Additionally, higher inflation would occur lockstep with declining savings. The recent surge in excess savings was a primary driver of the collapse in yields; its reversal would push up long-term interest rates (Chart I-17). Chart I-16Rising Inflation Uncertainty Will Steepen The Yield Curve Rising Inflation Uncertainty Will Steepen The Yield Curve Rising Inflation Uncertainty Will Steepen The Yield Curve Chart I-17Excess Savings Will Fall And Yields Will Rise Excess Savings Will Fall And Yields Will Rise Excess Savings Will Fall And Yields Will Rise   The Dollar The US dollar is the major currency most exposed to growing populism because of the extraordinary income inequalities observed in the US. Moreover, a generous combined monetary and fiscal policy setting in the US has eroded the dollar’s appeal as the country’s trade deficit widens (it normally narrows during a recession) in response to pronounced national dissaving (Chart I-18, left panel). Furthermore, US broad money growth stands far above that of other major economies (Chart I-18, right panel). Compared with other major central banks, the Fed is more guilty of financing the public-sector’s debt binge. Debt monetization creates a real risk to a stable USD. Chart I-18AFalling Savings And The Fed's Generosity Will Tank The Greenback November 2020 November 2020 Chart I-18BFalling Savings And The Fed’s Generosity Will Tank The Greenback November 2020 November 2020   The expanding global recovery creates an additional problem for the countercyclical dollar. China’s role is particularly important in this regard as the nation’s domestic economic activity will improve further in response to the lagged impact of a rapid climb in total social financing (Chart I-19, top panel). Sturdy Chinese demand results in climbing global industrial production, which will hurt the greenback. Likewise, China’s healthy recovery has lifted interest rate differentials in favor of the yuan (Chart I-19, bottom panel). A strong CNY flatters China’s purchasing power abroad and diminishes deflationary pressures around the world. This combination should stimulate the global manufacturing sector, which benefits foreign economies more than it does the US.  Investors should consider inflation protection in all asset classes. Equities BCA Research still prefers global equities to bonds on a cyclical basis. The early innings of a pickup in inflation would solidify this bias. Our Adjusted Equity Risk Premium, which accounts for the expected growth rate of earnings and the non-stationarity of the traditional ERP, shows a solid valuation cushion in favor of stocks (Chart I-20). Moreover, forward earnings for the S&P 500 have upside, judging by the gap between the Backlog of Orders and the Customer Inventories components of the ISM Manufacturing survey (Chart I-21). Chart I-19China's Robust Growth Hurts The Dollar China's Robust Growth Hurts The Dollar China's Robust Growth Hurts The Dollar Chart I-20The Adjusted ERP Still Favors Stocks The Adjusted ERP Still Favors Stocks The Adjusted ERP Still Favors Stocks   We also continue to overweight cyclical sectors over defensive ones. The existence of greater inflation risk than the market believes confirms this view. Cyclicals would outperform if investors priced in quicker inflation because they would also bid down the dollar and push up inflation breakeven rates (Chart I-22). These relationships exist because industrials and materials enjoy greater pricing power in an inflationary environment and financials would benefit from a steeper yield curve. An outperformance of deep cyclicals relative to defensive equities should result in an underperformance of US shares relative to the rest of the world. Chart I-21Earnings Revisions Have Upside Earnings Revisions Have Upside Earnings Revisions Have Upside Chart I-22Deep Cyclicals Will Like The Brand New World Deep Cyclicals Will Like The Brand New World Deep Cyclicals Will Like The Brand New World   The long-term outlook for real stock returns is poor, despite a positive six- to nine-month view. Higher inflation will force a greater upside in yields. However, the current extraordinary market multiples can only be justified if one believes that yields will stay depressed for many more years. Thus, inflation would likely prompt a de-rating of equities. Furthermore, our structural inflation view rests on the imposition of populist economic policies. A move backward in globalization and redistributionist policies would lift the share of wages in national income, which would compress extraordinarily wide profit margins (Chart I-23). Therefore, real long-term profits will probably suffer. Paradoxically, nominal stock prices may still eke out positive nominal gains, but that will be a consequence of the money illusion created by higher inflation. Chart I-23Populism Threatens Profit Margins Populism Threatens Profit Margins Populism Threatens Profit Margins BCA Research still prefers global equities to bonds on a cyclical basis. Investors should continue to overweight equities versus bonds, despite pronounced hurdles to long-term, real returns in stocks. Historically, periods of transition from low inflation to higher inflation have allowed stocks to outperform bonds, even if equities generate negative real returns (Table I-1). The exceptionally low real yields and thin inflation protection offered by government bonds increases the likelihood that history will be repeated. Table I-1Rising Inflation: Equities Beat Bonds November 2020 November 2020 A size bias may offer some protection against higher inflation both in the near and long term. We have been positive on small cap equities since September and our US Equity Strategy service upgraded the Russell 2000 to overweight this week.4 A bump in railroad freight volumes augurs well for the domestic economy to which small caps are very sensitive. Additionally, stronger railroad freight volumes also indicate net rating upgrades for junk bonds, which decreases the riskiness of a highly levered small cap sector (Chart I-24). Moreover, small cap stocks are positively linked to major trends produced by higher inflation, such as a weaker dollar and higher commodity prices (Chart I-25). Small firms also enjoy rising consumer confidence, a variable targeted by populist politicians (Chart I-26). Therefore, the potential for a re-rating of the Russell 2000 relative to the S&P 500 is elevated, especially if investors reassess the likelihood of higher inflation.  Chart I-24Small-Cap Stocks Are Set To Shine Small-Cap Stocks Are Set To Shine Small-Cap Stocks Are Set To Shine Chart I-25Small-Cap Will Enjoy Higher Inflation... Small-Cap Will Enjoy Higher Inflation... Small-Cap Will Enjoy Higher Inflation... Chart I-26...And Populists ...And Populists ...And Populists Commodities BCA Research remains positive on the prices of natural resources on a cyclical basis even if there is more risk of a near-term correction for this asset class. Commodities are highly sensitive to a global industrial cycle that offers significant upside and to China in particular. Moreover, commodities are high-beta plays on a weaker dollar and higher inflation expectations (Chart I-27). Natural resources will benefit from economic populism because it lifts demand for cyclical spending. Moreover, commodities are natural hedges against the risk of higher inflation. In this context, it makes sense to allocate more funds to resource stocks to protect an equity portfolio against inflation. Investors worried about the near-term outlook for commodities should rotate out of copper into crude. Copper has withstood the COVID-19 shock much better than Brent despite the strong cyclicality of both natural resources. Following this move, net speculative positions and sentiment measures for copper are toward the top of their ranges of the past 15 years. Meanwhile, the opposite is true for oil. Since 2005, increases in the Brent-to-copper ratio have followed declines to the current levels in the relative Composite Sentiment Indicator (Chart I-28), which includes sentiment and positioning measures for both commodities. Chart I-27Commodities Remain Efficient Inflation Hedges Commodities Remain Efficient Inflation Hedges Commodities Remain Efficient Inflation Hedges Chart I-28A Contrarian Tactical Trade: Buy Brent / Sell Copper A Contrarian Tactical Trade: Buy Brent / Sell Copper A Contrarian Tactical Trade: Buy Brent / Sell Copper   Fundamentals also point in that direction. After collapsing in recent months, global inventories of copper are beginning to climb relative to Brent. Moreover, oil production has dropped significantly relative to copper. Oil demand fell even more dramatically than that of copper, but the gap between production and demand growth is moving in favor of crude. Real long-term profits will probably suffer. This trade is agnostic to the direction of the business cycle. Copper prices embed a much more optimistic take toward global economic activity than Brent. Therefore, copper is more vulnerable to a negative economic upset than oil and less likely to benefit from a positive economic surprise. Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst October 29, 2020 Next Report: November 30, 2020   II. Beware The Bond-Bearish Blue Sweep US Election & Duration: We estimate that there is an 72% probability of a US election result that will give a lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. Those are strong enough odds to justify a move to a below-benchmark cyclical US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. US Treasuries: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Country Allocation: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to Canada and Australia. Stay neutral on the UK given the near-term uncertainties over the final Brexit outcome. With the US presidential election just two weeks away, public opinion polls continue to show that Joe Biden is the favorite to win the White House. However, the odds of a “Blue Sweep” - combining a Biden victory with the Democratic Party winning control of both the US Senate and House of Representatives - have increased since the end of September according to online prediction markets. US Treasury yields have also moved higher over that same period (Chart II-1), which we interpret as the bond market becoming more sensitive to the likelihood of a major increase in US government spending under single-party Democratic control. Chart II-1A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish A Blue Sweep Is Bond Bearish Table II-1A Comparison Of The Candidates' Budget Proposals November 2020 November 2020 According to a recent analysis done by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, President Trump’s formal policy proposals would increase US federal debt by $4.95 trillion between 2021 and 2030, while Biden’s plan would increase the debt by $5.60 trillion (Table II-1).5 While those are both massive fiscal stimulus plans, there is a stark difference in the policy mix of their proposals that matters for the future path of US bond yields. Under Biden, spending is projected to increase by a cumulative $11.1 trillion, partially offset by $5.8 trillion in revenue increases and savings with the former vice-president calling for tax hikes on corporations and high-income earners. On the other hand, Trump’s plan includes $5.45 trillion of spending increases and tax cuts over the next decade, offset by $0.75 trillion in savings. Conclusion: Biden would increase spending by over twice that of a re-elected Trump, with much of that spending expected to be front-loaded in the early part of his first term. Outright spending is more reflationary than tax cuts because it puts more money in the pockets of consumers (spenders) relative to producers (savers). The Biden plan would be more stimulating for overall activity even if the increase in debt is about the same. Chart II-2The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative The Biden Platform Is Highly Stimulative Another analysis of the Biden and Trump platforms was conducted by Moody’s in September, based on estimates of how much of each candidate’s promises could be successfully implemented under different combinations of White House and Congressional control.6 The stimulus figures were run through the Moody’s US economic model, which is similar to the budget scoring model of the US Congressional Budget Office, to produce a year-by-year path for the US economy over the next decade (Chart II-2). Moody’s concluded that the US economy would return to full employment in the second half of 2022 under a President Biden – especially if the Democrats win the Senate - compared to the first half of 2024 under a re-elected President Trump. Such a rapid closing of the deep US output gap that opened up because of the COVID-19 recession would likely trigger a reassessment of the Fed’s current highly dovish policy stance. At the moment, the US overnight index swap (OIS) curve discounts one full 25bp Fed hike by late 2023/early 2024, and two full hikes by late 2024/early 2025 (Chart II-3). This pricing of the future path of interest rates has occurred even with the Fed promising to keep the funds rate anchored near 0% until at least the end of 2023. The likelihood of some form of increased fiscal spending after the election will cause the bond market to challenge the Fed’s current forward guidance even more, putting upward pressure on Treasury yields. Chart II-3US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff US Fiscal Stimulus Will Pull Forward Fed Liftoff Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy see a Blue Sweep as the most likely outcome of the US election, although their forecasting models suggest that the race for control of the Senate will be much closer than the Biden vs Trump battle (there is little chance that control of the House of Representatives would switch back to the Republicans).7 Their scenarios for each of the White House/Senate combinations, along with their own estimated probability for each, are the following: Biden wins in a Democratic sweep: BCA probability = 27%. The US economy will benefit from higher odds of unfettered fiscal stimulus in 2021, although financial markets will simultaneously have to adjust for the negative shock to US corporate earnings from higher taxes and regulation. Government bond yields should rise on the generally reflationary agenda. Trump wins with a Republican Senate: BCA probability = 23%. In this status quo scenario, a re-elected President Trump would still face opposition from House Democrats on most domestic economic issues, forcing him to tilt towards more protectionist foreign and trade policies in his second term. Fiscal stimulus would be easy to agree, though not as large as under a Democratic sweep. US Treasury yields would rise, but would later prove volatile due to the risk to the cyclical recovery from a global trade war, as Trump’s tariffs will not be limited to China and could even affect the European Union. Biden wins with the Senate staying Republican: BCA probability = 28%. This is ultimately the most positive outcome for financial markets - reduced odds of a full-blown trade war with China, combined with no new tax hikes. Bond yields would drift upward over time, but not during the occasional fiscal battles that would ensue between the Democratic president and Republican senators. The first such battle would start right after the election. Treasuries would remain well bid until financial market pressures forced a Senate compromise with the new president sometime in H1 2021. Trump wins with a Democratic Senate: BCA probability = 22%. This is the least likely scenario but one that could produce a big positive fiscal impulse. Trump is a big spender and will veto tax hikes, but will approve populist spending on areas where he agrees. The Democratic Senate would not resist Trump’s tough stance on China, however, thus keeping the risk of US-China trade skirmishes elevated. This is neutral-to-bearish for US Treasuries, depending on the size of any bipartisan stimulus measures and Trump’s trade actions. The key takeaway is that the combined probability of scenarios that will put upward pressure on US Treasury yields is 72%, versus a 28% probability of a more bond-neutral outcome. That is a bond-bearish skew worth positioning for by reducing US duration exposure now, ahead of the November 3 election. Of this 72%, 45 percentage points come from scenarios in which President Trump would remain in power. Hence his trade wars would eventually undercut his reflationary fiscal policy. This would become the key risk to the short duration view after the initial market response. Bottom Line: The most likely scenarios for the US election will give a cyclical lift to US Treasury yields via increased fiscal stimulus. This justifies a move to a below-benchmark US duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. If Trump is re-elected, the timing of Trump’s likely return to using broad-based tariffs will have to be monitored closely. A Moderate Bear Market While our anticipated Blue Sweep election outcome will lead to a large amount of fiscal spending in 2021 and beyond, we anticipate only a modest increase in bond yields during the next 6-12 months. In terms of strategy, our recommended reduction in portfolio duration reflects the fact that fiscal largesse meaningfully reduces the risk of another significant downleg in bond yields and strengthens our conviction in a moderate bear market scenario for bonds. This does raise the question of how large an increase in US Treasury yields we expect during the next 6-12 months. We turn to this question now. Chart II-4Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Less Election-Day Upside Than In 2016 Not Like 2016 First, we do not expect a massive election night bond rout like we saw in 2016 (Chart II-4). For one thing, the Fed was much more eager to tighten policy in 2016 than it is today, and it did deliver a rate hike one month after the Republicans won the House, Senate and White House (Chart II-4, bottom panel). This time around, the Fed has made it clear that it will wait until inflation is running above its 2% target before lifting rates off the zero bound and will not respond directly to expectations for greater fiscal stimulus. Second, 2016’s election result was mostly unanticipated. This led to a dramatic adjustment in market prices once the results came in. The PredictIt betting market odds of a “Red Sweep” by the Republicans in 2016 were only 16% the night before the election. As of today, the betting markets are priced for a 58% chance of a Blue Sweep in 2020. Unlike in 2016, bonds are presumably already partially priced for the most bond-bearish election outcome. A Slow Return To Equilibrium To more directly answer the question of how high bond yields can rise, survey estimates of the long-run (or equilibrium) federal funds rate provide a useful starting point. In a world where the economy is growing at an above-trend pace and inflation is expected to move towards the Fed’s target, it is logical for long-maturity Treasury yields to settle near estimates of the long-run fed funds rate. Indeed, this theory is borne out empirically. During the last two periods of robust global economic growth (2017/18 & 2013/14), the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield peaked around levels consistent with long-run fed funds rate estimates (Chart II-5). As of today, the median estimates of the long-run fed funds rate from the New York Fed’s Survey of Market Participants and Survey of Primary Dealers are 2% and 2.25%, respectively. In other words, a complete re-convergence to these equilibrium levels would impart 80 – 100 bps of upward pressure to the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield. We expect this re-convergence to play out eventually, but probably not within the next 6-12 months. In both prior periods when the 5-year/5-year forward Treasury yield reached these equilibrium levels, the Fed’s reaction function was much more hawkish. The Fed was hiking rates throughout 2017 & 2018 (Chart II-5, panel 4), and the market moved quickly to price in rate hikes in 2013 (Chart II-5, bottom panel). The Fed’s new dovish messaging will ensure that the market reacts less quickly this time around. Also, continued curve steepening will mean that the 5-year/5-year forward yield’s 80 – 100 bps of upside will translate into significantly less upside for the benchmark 10-year yield. The 10-year yield and 5-year/5-year forward yield peaked at similar levels in 2017/18 when the Fed was lifting rates and the yield curve was flat (Chart II-6). But, the 10-year peaked far below the 5-year/5-year yield in 2013/14 when the Fed stayed on hold and the curve steepened. Chart II-5How High For Treasury Yields? How High For Treasury Yields? How High For Treasury Yields? Chart II-6Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y Less Upside In 10yr Than In 5y5y   The next bear move in bonds will look much more like 2013/14. The Fed will keep a firm grip over the front-end of the curve, leading to curve steepening and less upside in the 10-year Treasury yield than in the 5-year/5-year forward. In addition to shifting to a below-benchmark duration stance, investors should maintain exposure to nominal yield curve steepeners. Specifically, we recommend buying the 5-year note versus a duration-matched barbell consisting of the 2-year and 10-year notes (Chart II-6, bottom panel).8 TIPS Versus Nominals We have seen that a full re-convergence to “equilibrium” implies 80 – 100 bps of upside in the 5-year/5-year forward nominal Treasury yield. Bringing TIPS into the equation, we have also observed that long-maturity (5-year/5-year forward and 10-year) TIPS breakeven inflation rates tend to settle into a range of 2.3 – 2.5 percent when inflation is well-anchored and close to the Fed’s target (Chart II-7). The additional fiscal stimulus that will follow a Blue Sweep election makes it much more likely that the economic recovery will stay on course, leading to an eventual return of inflation to target and of long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates to a 2.3 – 2.5 percent range. However, as with nominal yields, this re-convergence will be a long process whose pace will be dictated by the actual inflation data. To underscore that point, consider that our Adaptive Expectations Model of the 10-year TIPS breakeven inflation rate – a model that is driven by trends in the actual inflation data – has the 10-year breakeven rate as close to fair value (Chart II-8).9 This fair value will rise only slowly over time, alongside increases in actual inflation. Chart II-7Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Overweight TIPS Versus Nominals Chart II-8Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed Real Yields Have Likely Bottomed   All in all, we continue to recommend an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. TIPS breakeven inflation rates will move higher during the next 6-12 months, but are unlikely to reach our 2.3 – 2.5 percent target range within that timeframe. TIPS In Absolute Terms As stated above, we expect nominal yields to increase more than real yields during the next 6-12 months, but what about the absolute direction of real (aka TIPS) yields? Here, our sense is that real yields have also bottomed. If we consider the extreme scenario where the 5-year/5-year forward nominal yield returns to its equilibrium level and where long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates return to our target range, it implies about 80 bps of upside in the nominal yield and 40 bps of upside in the breakeven. This means that the 5-year/5-year real yield has about 40 bps of upside in a complete “return to equilibrium” scenario. While we don’t expect this “return to equilibrium” to be completed within the next 6-12 months, the process is probably underway. The only way for real yields to keep falling in this reflationary world is for the Fed to become increasingly dovish, even as growth improves and inflation rises. After its recent shift to an average inflation target, our best guess is that Fed rate guidance won’t get any more dovish from here. Real yields fell sharply this year as the market priced in this change in the Fed’s reaction function, but the late-August announcement of the Fed’s new framework will probably mark the bottom in real yields (Chart II-8, bottom panel).10 Chart II-9Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Own Inflation Curve Flatteners And Real Curve Steepeners Two More Curve Trades In addition to moving to below-benchmark duration, maintaining nominal yield curve steepeners and staying overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, there are two additional trades that investors should consider in order to profit from the reflationary economic environment. The first is inflation curve flatteners. The cost of short-maturity inflation protection is below the cost of long-maturity inflation protection, meaning that it has further to run as inflation returns to the Fed’s target (Chart II-9). In addition, if the Fed eventually succeeds in achieving a temporary overshoot of its inflation target, then we should expect the inflation curve to invert. Real yield curve steepeners are in some ways the mirror image of inflation curve flatteners. Assuming no change in nominal yields, the real yield curve will steepen as the inflation curve flattens. But what makes real yield curve steepeners look even more attractive is that increases in nominal yields during the next 6-12 months will be concentrated in long-maturities. This will impart even more steepening pressure to the real yield curve. Investors should continue to hold inflation curve flatteners and real yield curve steepeners. Bottom Line: We anticipate a moderate bear market in US Treasuries to unfold during the next 6-12 months. In addition to below-benchmark portfolio duration, investors should overweight TIPS versus nominal Treasuries, hold nominal and real yield curve steepeners, and hold inflation curve flatteners. Non-US Government Bonds: Reduce Exposure To US Treasuries The mildly bearish case for US Treasuries that we have laid out above not only matters for our recommended duration stance, but also for our suggested country allocation within global government bond portfolios. Simply put, the risk of rising bond yields is much higher in the US than elsewhere, both for the immediate post-election period but also over the medium-term. Thus, the immediate obvious portfolio decision is to downgrade US Treasuries to underweight. The move higher in US Treasury yields that we expect is strictly related to spillovers from likely US fiscal stimulus. While other countries in the developed world are contemplating the need for additional fiscal measures, particularly in Europe where there is a renewed surge in coronavirus infections and growing economic restrictions, no country is facing as sharp a policy choice as the US with its upcoming election. We can say with a fair degree of certainty that the US will have a relatively more stimulative fiscal policy stance than other developed economies over at least the next couple of years. This implies a higher relative growth trajectory for the US that hurts Treasuries more on the margin than non-US government debt. In addition, the likely path of relative monetary policy responses are more bearish for US Treasuries. As described above, the scope of the US stimulus will cause bond investors to further question the Fed’s commitment to keeping the funds rate unchanged for the next few years. That also applies to the Fed’s other policy tools, like asset purchases. The Fed is far less likely to continue buying US Treasuries at the same aggressive pace it has for the past eight months if there is less need for monetary stimulus because of more fiscal stimulus. Chart II-10The Fed Will Gladly Trade Less QE For More Fiscal Stimulus November 2020 November 2020 According to the IMF, the Fed has purchased 57% of all US Treasuries issued since late February of this year, in sharp contrast to the ECB and Bank of Japan that have purchased over 70% of euro area government bonds and JGBs issued (Chart II-10). If US Treasury yields are rising because of improving US growth expectations, fueled by fiscal stimulus, the Fed will likely tolerate such a move and buy an even lower share of Treasuries issued – particularly if the higher bond yields do not cause a selloff in US equity markets that can tighten financial conditions and threaten the growth outlook. The fact that US equities have ignored the rise in Treasury yields seen since the end of September may be a sign that both bond and stock investors are starting to focus on a faster trajectory for US growth. In terms of country allocation, beyond downgrading US Treasuries to underweight, we recommend upgrading exposure to countries that are less sensitive to changes in US Treasury yields (i.e. countries with a lower yield beta to changes in US yields). In Chart II-11, we show the rolling beta of changes in 10-year government bond yields outside the US to changes in 10-year US Treasury yields. This is a variation of the “global yield beta” concept that we have discussed in the BCA Research bond publications in recent years. Here, we modify the idea to look at which countries are more or less correlated to US yields, specifically. A few points stand out from the chart: Chart II-11Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields Reduce Exposure To Bond Markets More Correlated To UST Yields All countries have a “US yield beta” of less than 1, suggesting that Treasuries are a consistent outperformer when US yields fall and vice versa. This suggests moving to underweight the US when US yields are rising is typically a winning strategy in a portfolio context. The list of higher beta countries includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK and Germany; although Canada stands out as having the highest yield beta in this group. The list of lower beta countries includes France, Italy, Spain, and Japan. In Chart II-12, we show what we call the “upside yield beta” that is estimated only using data for periods when Treasury yields are rising. This gives a sense of which countries are more likely to outperform or underperform during a period of rising Treasury yields, as we expect to unfold after the election. From this perspective, the “safer” lower US upside yield beta group includes the UK, France, Germany and Japan. The riskier higher US upside yield beta group includes Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Italy and Spain. Chart II-12Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Favor Bond Markets Less Correlated to RISING UST Yields Spain and Italy are less likely to behave like typical high-beta countries as US yields rise, however, because the ECB is likely to remain an aggressive buyer of their government bonds as part of their asset purchase programs over the next 6-12 months. We also do not recommend trading UK Gilts off their yield beta to US Treasuries in the immediate future, given the uncertainties over the negotiations over a final Brexit deal. Both sets of US yield betas suggest higher-beta Canada, Australia and New Zealand are more at risk of relative underperformance versus lower-beta France, Germany and Japan. In terms of government bond country allocation, we recommend reducing exposure to the former group and increasing allocations to the latter group. Bottom Line: Within global government bond portfolios, downgrade the US to underweight. Favor countries that have lower sensitivity to rising US Treasury yields, especially those with central banks that are likely to be more dovish than the Fed in the next few years. That means increasing allocations to core Europe and Japan, while reducing exposure to “higher-beta” Canada and Australia.   Robert Robis, CFA Chief Fixed Income Strategist rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com III. Indicators And Reference Charts The S&P 500 is experiencing its second correction in the past two months. The market looks even more fragile than it did in September. COVID-19 is heating up fast enough that lockdowns are re-emerging globally, the odds of an imminent fiscal deal have cratered to a near-zero chance, and investors are paying more attention to the growing risk of gridlock in Washington where a Biden Presidency and a Republican Senate majority would result in temporary fiscal paralysis. In this context, the decline in the momentum of the BCA Monetary Indicator, the elevated reading of our Speculation Indicator and the overvaluation of the stock market create the perfect cocktail for a dangerous few weeks. The longer we live in uncertainty regarding the elections’ result, the worse the market will fare. Short-term indicators confirm that equities are likely to remain under downward pressure in the coming weeks. Both the proportion of NYSE stocks above their 30-week and 10-week moving averages are still deteriorating after forming negative divergences with the S&P 500. They are also nowhere near levels consistent with a solid floor under the market. Moreover, our Intermediate Equity Indicator and the S&P 500 as a deviation from its 200-day moving average have rolled-over after reaching extremely overbought levels. Finally, both the poor performance of EM stocks as well as the underperformance of the Baltic Dry index and global chemical stocks relative to bond prices and the VIX indicate that cyclical assets could suffer from a wave of growth disappointment. Despite these short-term headwinds, the main pillar supporting the rally remains intact: global monetary conditions are highly accommodative. Moreover, the economic and financial risks created by the tepidity of fiscal support in recent months is self-limiting. As the economy progressively teeters toward a second leg of the recession, the pressure will rise for policymakers to spend generously once again to support their nations. Our cyclical indicators confirm the positive backdrop for stocks. Our Monetary Indicator remains at the top of its pre-COVID-19 distribution, which will put a natural floor under stocks, even if its recent deterioration is consistent with a market correction. Moreover, our Revealed Preference Indicator continues to flash a buy signal for stocks. Additionally, the BCA Composite Sentiment Indicator stands toward the middle of its historical distribution and the VIX has not hit the extremely compressed levels that normally precede major cyclical tops in the S&P 500. When weighing the short-term negative forces against the cyclical positives, we expect the S&P 500 to find a floor between 3000 and 3100. At this level, the froth highlighted by our Speculation Indicator will have dissipated.  The bond market’s dynamics are interesting. Despite the violent sell-off in equities, Treasury yields are not declining much. Bonds are too expensive and with short-term rates near their lower bound, Treasurys are losing their ability to hedge equity risk in portfolios. Moreover, the bond market seems to understand that any recession will encourage additional fiscal profligacy, which puts a floor under yields. These dynamics suggest that once equities stabilize, yields could start rising meaningfully. Finally, the dollar continues its sideways correction. However, as risk aversion rises and global growth deteriorates, the dollar is likely to catch further upside in the near term, especially as it has not fully worked out this summer’s oversold conditions. Moreover, the dollar is a momentum currency. Thus, once its start to turn around, its rally is likely to be more powerful than most expect, which will put additional downward pressures on commodity prices. Consequently, it is too early to start selling the USD again or to bottom fish natural resources. EQUITIES: Chart III-1US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators US Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators US Equity Sentiment Indicators   Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation US Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6US Earnings US Earnings US Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance   FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations US Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Yield Curve Slopes Chart III-11Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Selected US Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor US Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets   CURRENCIES: Chart III-16US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP US Dollar And PPP Chart III-17US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator US Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals US Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals   COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning   ECONOMY: Chart III-28US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop US And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot US Macro Snapshot Chart III-30US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook US Growth Outlook Chart III-31US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending US Cyclical Spending Chart III-32US Labor Market US Labor Market US Labor Market Chart III-33US Consumption US Consumption US Consumption Chart III-34US Housing US Housing US Housing Chart III-35US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging US Debt And Deleveraging   Chart III-36US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions US Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China   Mathieu Savary Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst   Footnotes 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Labor Strikes Back," dated February 27, 2020, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 High odds of staying in the income decile of your parents. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Webcast "Geopolitical Alpha In 2020-21," dated October 21, 2020. Marko also recently published a book "Geopolitical Alpha." 4 Please see US Equity Strategy Weekly Report "Vigilantes Gone Missing?" dated October 26, 2020, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 5 http://www.crfb.org/papers/cost-trump-and-biden-campaign-plans 6 https://www.moodysanalytics.com/-/media/article/2020/the-macroeconomic-consequences-trump-vs-biden.pdf 7 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Introducing Our Quantitative US Senate Election Model”, dated October 16, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 8 For more details on this recommended steepener trade please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 9 For more details on our Adaptive Expectations Model please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “How Are Inflation Expectations Adapting?”, dated February 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 10 For a detailed look at the implications of the Fed’s policy shift please see US Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, “A New Dawn For US Monetary Policy”, dated September 1, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Duration: Prospects for more pre-election fiscal stimulus are slim. But with the Democrats gaining ground in the polls, the bond market will stay focused on rising odds of a blue sweep election and greater fiscal stimulus in early 2021. Municipal Bonds: Municipal bonds offer exceptional value relative to both US Treasuries and corporate credit. Not only that, but rising odds of a blue sweep election make state & local government fiscal relief increasingly likely. Investors should overweight municipal bonds in US fixed income portfolios. Economy: The economic recovery continues to roll on, but it will be some time before the output gap is closed and inflation starts to rise. Slow consumer and corporate credit growth suggest that animal spirits have not yet taken hold. Meanwhile, the falling unemployment rate masks a persistent uptrend in the number of permanently unemployed. Feature Chart 1Breakout Breakout Breakout After having been lulled to sleep by several months of stagnant yields, bond investors experienced a minor shockwave in early October. The 10-year Treasury yield and 2/10 slope both broke out of well-established trading ranges and implied interest rate volatility bounced off all-time lows to reach its highest level since June (Chart 1). We suspect this might turn out to be just the first small tremor in a tumultuous month leading up to the US election. Specifically, there are two main political risks that will be resolved within the next month. Both have major implications for the bond market. Bond-Bullish Risk: No More Stimulus Before The Election  The first risk is the possibility that the current Congress will not deliver any more fiscal stimulus. This increasingly looks like less of a possibility and more of a likelihood, especially after the president tweeted that he is halting negotiations with House Democrats. While he partially walked those comments back the next day, the fact remains that there is very little time between now and November 3rd, and the two sides remain at loggerheads. We have argued that more household income support from Congress is necessary. Otherwise, consumer spending will massively disappoint during the next year.1 However, it could take a few more months before this becomes apparent in the consumer spending data. Real consumer spending still rose in August, though much less quickly than it did in June and July (Chart 2). Meanwhile, August disposable income remained above pre-COVID levels, as it continued to receive a boost from facilities related to the CARES act (Chart 2, bottom panel). This boost will fade as the CARES act’s money is doled out, pushing spending lower. That is, unless Congress enacts a follow-up bill. There are two main political risks that will be resolved within the next month and both have major implications for the bond market. It looks less and less likely that a bill will be passed this month but, depending on the election outcome, a follow-up stimulus bill could become more likely in January. If consumer spending can hang in for the next couple of months, then the bond market might look past Congress’ near-term failure. This appears to be what is happening so far. The stock market fell 1.4% last Tuesday after Trump tweeted about halting negotiations. The 10-year Treasury yield, however, dropped only 2 bps on the day. More generally, long-dated bond yields rose during the past month, even as stocks sold off and prospects for immediate fiscal relief dimmed (Chart 3). Chart 2September's Consumer Spending Report Is Critical September's Consumer Spending Report Is Critical September's Consumer Spending Report Is Critical Chart 3Bonds Ignore Stock ##br##Market... Bonds Ignore Stock Market... Bonds Ignore Stock Market... With all that in mind, we think September’s consumer spending data – the last month of data we will see before the election – are very important. If spending collapses, it might re-focus the market’s attention on Congress’ failure, sending bond yields down. However, we think the market would see through a modest drop in spending, especially if the election looks poised to bring us a larger bill in 2021. Bond-Bearish Risk: A Blue Sweep Election Chart 4...Take Cues From Election Odds ...Take Cues From Election Odds ...Take Cues From Election Odds This brings us to the second big political risk that could influence bond yields during the next month: The possibility of a “blue sweep” election where the Democrats win control of the House, Senate and White House. This would clearly be a bearish outcome for bonds, as an unimpeded Democratic party would enact a large stimulus package – likely worth $2.5 to $3.5 trillion – shortly after inauguration. It appears that the bond market is already tentatively pricing-in this outcome. While the recent increase in bond yields is hard to square with weak equity prices and souring expectations for immediate stimulus, it is consistent with rising betting market odds of a blue sweep election (Chart 4). To underscore the bond bearishness of this potential election outcome, consider that not only would a unified Congress be able to quickly deliver another fiscal relief bill, but Joe Biden’s platform calls for even more spending on infrastructure, healthcare, education and other Democratic priorities. In total, Biden is proposing new spending of around 3% of GDP, only about half of which will be offset by tax increases (Table 1). Table 1ABiden Would Raise $4 Trillion In Revenue Over Ten Years Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market Table 1BBiden Would Spend $7 Trillion In Programs Over Ten Years Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market How likely is a “blue sweep” election? It is our Geopolitical Strategy service’s base case.2 Also, fivethirtyeight.com’s poll-based forecasting model sees a 68% chance that Democrats win the Senate, a 94% chance that they win the House and an 85% chance that Joe Biden wins the presidency. Investment Strategy These two political risks appear to put bond investors in a bit of a conundrum. On the one hand, if no stimulus bill is passed this month and September’s consumer spending data are weak, then bond yields could fall in the near-term. However, we are inclined to think that if all that occurs against the back-drop of rising odds of a blue sweep election outcome, the bond market will look beyond the near-term and yields will move higher on expectations of larger stimulus coming in January. As such, we retain our relatively pro-reflation investment stance. We recommend owning nominal and real yield curve steepeners, inflation curve flatteners and maintaining an overweight position in TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. All these positions are designed to profit from a rising yield environment.3 Municipal bonds look extremely cheap compared to other US fixed income sectors. We retain an “at benchmark” portfolio duration stance for now, for two reasons. First, while a blue sweep election outcome looks like the most likely scenario, it is not a guarantee. Second, even against the backdrop of greater government stimulus and continued economic recovery, the US economy will still be dealing with a large output gap next year that will temper inflationary pressures. This will keep the Fed on hold, limiting the upside in bond yields. That being said, the odds of another significant downleg in bond yields look increasingly slim. We will likely shift to a more aggressive “below-benchmark” duration stance this month, if our conviction in a blue sweep election outcome continues to rise. A Rare Buying Opportunity In Municipal Bonds No matter how you slice it, municipal bonds look extremely cheap compared to other US fixed income sectors. First, we can look at the spread between Aaa-rated munis and maturity-matched US Treasury yields (Chart 5). When we do this, we find that 2-year and 5-year municipal bonds trade at about the same yields as their Treasury counterparts. This is despite municipal debt’s tax-exempt status. Munis look even more attractive further out the curve, with 10-year and 30-year bonds trading at a before-tax premium relative to Treasuries. Chart 5Aaa Munis Versus ##br##Treasuries Aaa Munis Versus Treasuries Aaa Munis Versus Treasuries Table 2Muni/Corporate Breakeven Effective Tax Rates (%) Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market Next, we can look at how municipal bonds stack up compared to corporates. We do this in a couple different ways. In Table 2, we start with the Bloomberg Barclays Investment Grade Corporate Index split by credit tier. We then find the General Obligation (GO) municipal bond that matches each corporate index’s credit rating and maturity and calculate the breakeven effective tax rate between the two yields. The breakeven effective tax rate is the effective tax rate that would make an investor indifferent between owning the municipal bond and the corporate bond. For example, if an investor faces an effective tax rate of 7%, they will observe the same after-tax yield in a 12-year A-rated GO municipal bond as they do in a 12-year A-rated corporate bond. If their effective tax rate is more than 7%, the muni offers an after-tax yield advantage. Alternatively, we can look at the relative value between munis and credit using the Bloomberg Barclays Municipal Indexes. In Chart 6A, we start with the average yield on the Bloomberg Barclays General Obligation indexes by maturity. We then find the US Credit index that matches the credit rating and duration of the municipal index and calculate the yield differential.4 We find that in all cases, for GO bonds ranging from 6 years to maturity and higher, the muni offers a before-tax yield advantage compared to the Credit Index. This is also true when we perform the same exercise using municipal revenue bonds instead of GOs (Chart 6B). Chart 6AGO Munis Versus Credit GO Munis Versus Credit GO Munis Versus Credit Chart 6BRevenue Munis Versus Credit Revenue Munis Versus Credit Revenue Munis Versus Credit You may notice that municipal bonds trade at a before-tax premium to credit in Charts 6A and 6B, but at a discount in Table 2. This is because we compare bonds by maturity in Table 2 and by duration in Charts 6A and 6B. Unlike investment grade corporates, municipal bonds often carry call options making them negatively convex and giving them a duration that is much shorter than their maturity. Cheap For A Reason, Or Just Plain Cheap? Chart 7State & Local Balance Sheets Will Weather The Storm State & Local Balance Sheets Will Weather The Storm State & Local Balance Sheets Will Weather The Storm We have effectively demonstrated that municipal bonds offer value relative to both Treasuries and corporate credit. But attractive value is not enough to warrant an overweight allocation. Ideally, we would also like some degree of confidence that wide spreads won’t eventually be justified by a wave of downgrades and defaults. While state & local government balance sheets are certainly stressed, we see strong odds that the muni market will emerge from the COVID recession relatively unscathed. For starters, state & local governments were experiencing strong revenue growth prior to the pandemic (Chart 7, top panel). This allowed them to build rainy day funds up to all-time highs (Chart 7, panel 4). Second, income support for households from the CARES act helped prop up state & local income tax revenues in the second quarter (Chart 7, panel 2), though sales tax revenues took a significant hit (Chart 7, panel 3). Going forward, a blue sweep election scenario would not only provide more income support for households – helping income tax revenues – but a Democratic controlled Congress would also quickly deliver fiscal aid directly to state & local governments. In fact, it is this aid for state & local governments that is currently the key sticking point in fiscal negotiations. In the meantime, state & local governments will continue to clamp down on spending. This can already be seen in the massive drop in state & local government employment (Chart 7, bottom panel). This is obviously a drag on economic growth, but the combination of austerity measures and high rainy day fund balances will help municipal bonds avoid downgrades and defaults, at least until a fiscal relief bill is passed next year. While state & local government balance sheets are certainly stressed, we see strong odds that the muni market will emerge from the COVID recession relatively unscathed. Bottom Line: Municipal bonds offer exceptional value relative to both US Treasuries and corporate credit. Not only that, but rising odds of a blue sweep election make state & local government fiscal relief increasingly likely. Investors should overweight municipal bonds in US fixed income portfolios. Economy: Credit Growth & The Labor Market Credit Growth Slowing Chart 8No Animal Spirits No Animal Spirits No Animal Spirits Of notable economic data releases during the past two weeks, we find it particularly interesting that both consumer credit and Commercial & Industrial (C&I) bank lending continue to slow (Chart 8). On the consumer side, massive income support from the CARES act and few spending opportunities caused households to pay down debt this spring. Then, after two months of modest gains, consumer credit fell again in August (Chart 8, top panel). This strongly suggests that, even as lockdown restrictions have eased, consumers aren’t yet ready to open up the spending taps. On the corporate side, firms received much less of a direct cash injection from Congress and were forced to take on massive amounts of debt to get through the spring and early summer months. But as of the second quarter, we recently observed that nonfinancial corporate retained earnings now exceed capital expenditures.5 This strongly suggests that firms have taken out enough new debt and that C&I bank lending will remain slow in the coming months. Cracks Showing In The Labor Market Chart 9Far From Full Employment Far From Full Employment Far From Full Employment Finally, we should mention September’s employment report that was released two weeks ago (Chart 9). It is certainly positive that the unemployment rate continues to fall, but the main takeaway for bond investors should be that the US economy remains far from full employment, and therefore far away from generating meaningful inflationary pressure. While the unemployment rate fell for the fifth consecutive month, it is now dropping much less quickly than it did early in the summer (Chart 9, panel 2). Also, we continue to note that labor market gains are entirely concentrated in temporarily unemployed people returning to work. The number of permanently unemployed continues to rise (Chart 9, bottom panel). Bottom Line: The economic recovery continues to roll on, but it will be some time before the output gap is closed and inflation starts to rise. Slow consumer and corporate credit growth suggest that animal spirits have not yet taken hold. Meanwhile, the falling unemployment rate masks a persistent uptrend in the number of permanently unemployed. Appendix The Fed rolled out a number of aggressive lending facilities on March 23. These facilities focused on different specific sectors of the US bond market. The fact that the Fed has decided to support some parts of the market and not others has caused some traditional bond market correlations to break down. It has also led us to adopt of a strategy of “Buy What The Fed Is Buying”. That is, we favor those sectors that offer attractive spreads and that benefit from Fed support. The below Table tracks the performance of different bond sectors since the March 23 announcement. We will use this to monitor bond market correlations and evaluate our strategy’s success. Table 3Performance Since March 23 Announcement Of Emergency Fed Facilities Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market Political Risk Will Dominate In A Pivotal Month For The Bond Market Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “More Stimulus Needed”, dated September 15, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “It Ain’t Over Till It’s Over”, dated October 9, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 For more details on these recommended positions please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Positioning For Reflation And Avoiding Deflation”, dated August 11, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Note that we use the US Credit Index in Charts 6A and 6B. This index includes the entire US corporate bond index but also some non-corporate credit sectors like Sovereigns and Foreign Agency bonds. 5 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Out Of Bullets”, dated September 29, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Hopes for another round of fiscal stimulus before the election were apparently torpedoed last week, … : The White House’s 180-degree turn to abandon stimulus talks may initially have been meant as a negotiating ploy, but it pushed House leadership to dig in, and a major stimulus agreement ahead of the election appears to be slipping out of reach. … but stocks rose anyway, … : Financial markets seem to have decided that a failure to reach agreement on a stopgap stimulus measure now increases the chances for a no-holds-barred package after the new year. … and they just may be getting it right: There are some indications that households have stored up enough nuts to make it through a fourth quarter with nothing more than automatic fiscal stabilizers. If they can get by until a torrent of new stimulus is released in February, equities may well be the place to be. We Need More Stimulus … We have been talking about fiscal stimulus ever since the pandemic arrived on US shores. It and monetary accommodation are the economic tools policymakers have to combat the virus and fiscal stimulus has loomed increasingly larger given that the Fed has done nearly all it can. Our constructive view on risk assets and the economy stems from our conviction that fiscal policymakers have the power to bridge the pandemic’s economic gap and will eventually summon the will to exercise it. We have not previously delved into why the stimulus is needed, however, so we highlight the primary reasons now. Labor market hysteresis: The longer an individual is out of the work force, the greater the probability that his/her skills will erode to the point that s/he may become unemployable. If enough workers suffer this fate, America’s labor pool will be appreciably diminished. Since long-run economic growth is simply the sum of the growth of the working-age population and growth in productivity, a shrunken labor force will crimp potential economic growth. Slower economic growth would lead to weaker earnings growth and more difficulty servicing private- and public-sector debt, signaling trouble for risk assets and Treasuries. Although the unemployment rate retreated very quickly from the postwar high it established in April (Chart 1, top panel), the ranks of the long-term unemployed, defined as workers out of work for at least 27 weeks, are poised to swell. The share of the unemployed who have been out of work for at least 15 weeks is extremely high relative to its postwar history, just shy of early 2010’s 60% record (Chart 1, bottom panel). Once layoffs recede, the mass of long-term unemployed workers will eventually be whittled down, but the process did not begin for a full year after initial jobless claims peaked after the great recession (Chart 2). With claims’ four-week moving average having stalled well above its GFC peak and fresh layoff announcements from businesses in the virus’ crosshairs like Disney, Regal Cinemas and several airlines, the pipeline of the newly unemployed will remain full without additional aid. Chart 1The Unemployment Rate Is Falling, But Its Average Duration Is Rising The Unemployment Rate Is Falling, But Its Average Duration Is Rising The Unemployment Rate Is Falling, But Its Average Duration Is Rising Chart 2It Takes A While For Claims To Recede ... It Takes A While For Claims To Recede ... It Takes A While For Claims To Recede ... State and local governments, which account for over 13% of nonfarm payrolls, are also poised to swell the ranks of the unemployed. Hamstrung by balanced-budget laws, many public entities have no choice but to reduce headcount in the face of plummeting tax revenues. The difficulty of calibrating seasonal adjustment factors with this year’s shuffled school calendar may have distorted summer payroll data, but the empirical record suggests that state and local government payrolls do not bottom until well after recessions end (Chart 3). Without generous infusions of federal aid, state and local government layoffs are likely to be a lingering drag. Chart 3... And State And Local Governments Keep Shedding Workers Until They Come Way Down ... And State And Local Governments Keep Shedding Workers Until They Come Way Down ... And State And Local Governments Keep Shedding Workers Until They Come Way Down Self-reinforcing bankruptcies: Diminished potential long-run growth would be a drag for investors, but the most acute near-term concern is a wave of bankruptcies. In the absence of CARES Act provisions that expanded eligibility for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits, extended the period over which laid-off workers could collect UI benefits and granted the $600 weekly federal UI benefit supplement, along with various measures encouraging banks and forcing mortgage servicers to establish lender forbearance programs, consumer credit performance would have been significantly worse. Despite the pandemic shock, TransUnion reports that delinquencies across all consumer loan categories, ex-autos, have been steadily falling since March, and only auto loan delinquencies were higher (by a mere 7 basis points) in August 2020 than they were in August 2019. Bankruptcies beget bankruptcies. If policymakers can keep some creditworthy borrowers in viable industries out of the path of the falling dominoes, the economy will bounce back faster once the virus is contained.  If consumer delinquencies (Chart 4) were to rise anything close to the level implied by the unemployment rate, the effects would reverberate across the banking system and the credit markets. Reported delinquencies have been held down by forbearance measures, which have had the cosmetic effect of removing many of the most vulnerable loans from the delinquency ratios, but through the second quarter the biggest banks uniformly reported that most borrowers enrolled in their forbearance programs were making at least some payments on their loans and that a far greater share than they had expected were exiting the programs without requesting extensions. We will hear later this week if that surprisingly benevolent trend held across the third quarter, most of which unfolded after the expiration of key CARES Act provisions, but management comments in public appearances last month suggest that it did. Without another round of federal aid, state and local government layoffs will continue. Chart 4The CARES Act Worked The CARES Act Worked The CARES Act Worked Rising delinquencies and widening bond spreads typically sap banks’ and bond investors’ ardor for making new loans, establishing a vicious circle in which weak credit performance leads to reduced credit availability and more onerous terms. Banks have tightened lending standards on cue (Chart 5), but ultra-accommodative monetary policy and unprecedentedly generous fiscal policy have blunted tighter bank standards’ impact. The former made bond investors forget their fears, paving the way for a bonanza of investment grade and high yield issuance (Chart 6), while households’ transfer windfall supported consumer credit performance and made it possible for consumers to pay down a good chunk of their outstanding credit card balances (Chart 7). In 2020's hall of mirrors, household income rises, and personal loan delinquencies decline, despite a vicious recession. Chart 5Banks Tightened Lending Standards, ... Banks Tightened Lending Standards, ... Banks Tightened Lending Standards, ... Chart 6... But The Bond Market Welcomed Large Corporate Borrowers With Open Arms ... But The Bond Market Welcomed Large Corporate Borrowers With Open Arms ... But The Bond Market Welcomed Large Corporate Borrowers With Open Arms The result is that emergency policy measures have so far staved off defaults and bankruptcies by viable creditworthy borrowers but reduced credit availability could undo those victories going forward.     Chart 7Consumer Loan Balances Typically Rise At The Onset Of A Recession Consumer Loan Balances Typically Rise At The Onset Of A Recession Consumer Loan Balances Typically Rise At The Onset Of A Recession … But Do We Need It Right Away? Though they differ on their proposals for the ideal size and composition of a new package, mainstream economists unanimously support an additional round of stimulus. A stickier question we’ve been mulling over is when that package is needed. According to former Obama Council of Economic Advisers chairman Jason Furman, “The answer is, two months ago.”1 Furman’s formidable public policy credentials notwithstanding, financial markets do not share his sense of urgency. Given that the National Multifamily Housing Council’s Rent Tracker showed that residential rent collections haven’t missed a beat since CARES Act provisions expired in late July, markets may be on to something. September collections were a tick better than August’s and were within a percentage point of year-ago collections, while October is off to a better start than all of the last three months and has matched last year’s pace (Table 1). The rent collection data provide a real-world example of the ongoing impact of generous fiscal transfers. Despite the expiration of the federal UI supplement in July, August personal income exceeded February’s pre-pandemic level. Table 1Apartment Tenants Are Paying Their Rent The Marshmallow Test The Marshmallow Test Even without that key pillar of the CARES Act, households were able to add another $100 billion of savings to the $1 trillion cache they amassed from March to July over and above the savings they would otherwise have accumulated if income had grown in line with nominal trend GDP growth and the savings rate had remained constant at its pre-pandemic level. Some vulnerable households will surely suffer, but it looks to us like the aggregate savings stash may be able to see the economy through the rest of the year from a consumption perspective (Table 2). That would suggest that the salubrious effect on household wealth from consumer belt tightening and CARES Act transfers may give policymakers some extra leeway to cobble together the next round. Table 2Savings Might Be Able To Plug The Stimulus Gap The Marshmallow Test The Marshmallow Test Markets apparently reached that conclusion themselves, as they now seem to be rooting for the Democrats to take both the Senate and the White House. That outcome would likely postpone the next round of fiscal stimulus until February but would ultimately result in much more aid. The way that stocks swiftly shrugged off their initial disappointment over the termination of the latest stimulus talks suggests that they’re happy to forego a band-aid now for more significant assistance later. The situation is fluid, and Republicans may come around to providing immediate aid that would boost their electoral prospects, but we think markets could survive a fourth quarter without new fiscal stimulus, especially when it would increase the prospects of installing a Congress that shares the Fed's determination to err on the side of doing too much. Delayed Gratification In a now famous experiment, early childhood researchers at Stanford University seated a series of nursery school children at a table with a marshmallow, telling each child s/he could eat it, but if s/he held off until the researcher returned to the room (after an interval of several minutes), s/he would get a second marshmallow. The study’s subsequent conclusion that a child’s ability to delay gratification was an excellent predictor of his/her future success has since been questioned, but investors seem perfectly willing to forego modest stimulus now for a much richer reward in 2021. That perspective applies to the SIFI banks as well. Delaying the provision of additional support to households, businesses and state and local governments may cause a little near-term pain, but it’ll be well worth it to get a super-sized package promising much more long-term gain. The excess savings households built up across the spring and summer are large enough to cover projected consumption shortfalls, though it remains to be seen if they will be willing to part with them while the virus continues to spread. Our overweight recommendation is rooted in our conviction that extraordinary fiscal support will keep the SIFI banks’ ultimate credit losses well below market expectations. No support would force us to close out our recommendation, a skinny package now with uncertain follow-up later would undermine it, and a CARES Act sequel early next year would make it even more robust. A Democratic sweep would pave the way for Congress to match the Fed’s whatever-it-takes approach, greatly relieving the distress of consumers and small businesses as well as those who have lent to them. No one can be sure of how the election dynamics will unfold over the next three weeks, but it would be a mistake to walk away from SIFIs while the Democrats’ prospects are improving. We are therefore staying the course, further heartened by the SIFIs’ bombed-out valuations, which continue to imply gaping credit losses, and their failure to stay down in response to last week’s ostensibly bad news items. Investors would do well to heed our geopolitical strategy team’s admonition that single-party control of the White House and Capitol Hill contains risks that markets are currently overlooking, but our endorsement of the SIFIs has always been a cyclical call, not a tactical one. If Congress is eventually poised to join the Fed in a whatever-it-takes campaign, the SIFIs’ credit losses will be far smaller than feared and their stocks will have a long runway for unwinding their 2020 losses (Chart 8). Chart 8The SIFIs Would Benefit More From Supersized Stimulus Than The Overall Equity Market The SIFIs Would Benefit More From Supersized Stimulus Than The Overall Equity Market The SIFIs Would Benefit More From Supersized Stimulus Than The Overall Equity Market   Doug Peta, CFA Chief US Investment Strategist dougp@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Casselman, Ben and Tankersley, Jim, "Anxious for a Lifeline, the U.S. Economy Is Left to Sink or Swim," New York Times, accessed October 8, 2020.